Hairy Armpits In Holy Smoke?
Mike Jenner
Steve McDonald
>Is it true that in Holy Smoke Kate Winslet shows her very hairy armpits?
Hope so -- natural women are gorgeous -- Steve M, Atlanta-GA-USA
(her peeing scene was rigged, so said a magazine interview. ...Does
Jane Campion put a peeing scene in all her movies?)
Musikbug
>Jane Campion put a peeing scene in all her movies?)
I don't know about the peeing, but naked Harvey Keital seems to be a recurring
theme...
Steve McDonald
`Shadow`
Steve McDonald wrote in message <381335be...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Mike Jenner" <mi...@jenner.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Is it true that in Holy Smoke Kate Winslet shows her very hairy armpits?
>
>Hope so -- natural women are gorgeous -- Steve M, Atlanta-GA-USA
>Jane Campion put a peeing scene in all her movies?)
I agree to a point. I still can't get a rise out of hairy legs, though.
This past summer I was in the Acadia national park region of Maine. That
place attracts a lot of "nature girls" and I must say it's quite a
disappointment to see a good looking woman from a distance only to find out
her legs are shaggier than my own once she gets close enough. Just my own
taste, I guess....
Steve McDonald
I'm guessing natural women gravitate to colder climates -- damn!
Travis Bickle
(j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk) was seen saying the following in
alt.fan.kate-winslet (<kP03tJAL...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk>):
>being a female I hate hairiness on women.
Hairy pits can be sexy though. :) Very European.
--
Someday, a real rain will come:
http://home.earthlink.net/~austingeri/
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Jo Gill
legs or pits. I can't stand it on other women as well. Did you see Julia
Roberts at the Notting Hill Premiere? Beast. I suppose it was the only
way a woman like Julia could steal the headlines from Liz Hurley's
increasingly revealing dresses.
--
Jo Gill
Musikbug
trying to make some big statement or start a new trend. It turned out,
however, that she apparently had some sort of infection from waxing and her
doctor had advised her not to shave for a couple of weeks.
Mike Jenner
----------
In article <19991026130328...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, musi...@aol.com
(Musikbug) wrote:
okay, already. But does Kate have underarm hair in Holy Smoke or not?
She does in Jude but you can't see it too well. She is, though, obviously
unshaven in ... erm, other areas too in that film.
Steve McDonald
I'm salivating already. Wait...that's too far south to be saliva.
Jo Gill
<ugow...@mindspring.com> writes
That's REALLY Unnecessary!
--
Jo Gill
Ian Macdonald
>being a female I hate hairiness on women. I can't stand to have hairy
>legs or pits. I can't stand it on other women as well. Did you see Julia
>Roberts at the Notting Hill Premiere? Beast.
I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, why do you think hair grows
there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
Why do you think most women don't shave their heads? Fashion.
Why do you think most women do shave their legs and armpits? Fashion.
Don't be a fashion victim, live your own life.
Ian
--
Ian Macdonald | Were it not for imagination, sir, a man
Red Hat Certified Engineer | would be as happy in the arms of a
http://www.caliban.org/ | chambermaid as a duchess. -- Dr. Johnson
Linux 2.2.13 on an i686 |
Ed Felstein
>
> being a female I hate hairiness on women. I can't stand to have hairy
> legs or pits. I can't stand it on other women as well.
I'm with you, Jo.
I certainly appreciate earthiness in a woman, but I draw the line at
underarm and leg hair. If I wanted fur, I'd date a mink.
Jo Gill
<i...@caliban.org> writes
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:35:39 +0100, Jo Gill
>
>>being a female I hate hairiness on women. I can't stand to have hairy
>>Roberts at the Notting Hill Premiere? Beast.
>
>I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, why do you think hair grows
>there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
just don't like the taste. Is that fashionable?
>
>Why do you think most women don't shave their heads? Fashion.
heads. Whether they're wearing their hair long or short or permed or
not. Women generally do with their hair whatever makes them look
prettier. You could say that fashion dictates what's beautiful but I do
not believe that to be true. Fashion can mean something different for
each individual so you can hardly tell people to LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES.
It's a stupid generalised statement that women don't shave their heads
because of fashion. Why do men shave their beards? Why don't men shave
their beards? Everyone does what they want to do. It's really not
decided by fashion.
>
>Why do you think most women do shave their legs and armpits? Fashion.
the feel of my legs after I've shaved them. It's much nicer than this
stubbly stuff which some go for. It's personal choice though. If people
prefer a bit of the rough then good for them.
>
>Don't be a fashion victim, live your own life.
because I prefer it. MY friend likes to shave her bikini line like a
porn actress which I don't think looks very nice so I don't. I don't
look at what fashion dictates about bikini lines.
I'll hopefully never be a fashion victim although surprisingly I do like
some of the clothes that are in fashion. Some clothes are just beautiful
and I'll wear them because I think they're beautiful not because someone
else does.
>
>Ian
--
Jo Gill
Steve McDonald
>Jo Gill wrote:
>>
>> being a female I hate hairiness on women. I can't stand to have hairy
>> legs or pits. I can't stand it on other women as well.
>
>I'm with you, Jo.
>I certainly appreciate earthiness in a woman, but I draw the line at
>underarm and leg hair. If I wanted fur, I'd date a mink.
Let me guess...Ed sees absolutely nothing morally wrong with
the forcible mutilation of millions of newborn infant penises...
just a guess. Now to my next point: Women should be as
ashamed of letting that happen to their sons as they should
be of letting men *demand* that they shave their body hair.
How many men would shave their legs and armpits and
wear shoes that destroy their feet, legs and spines? How
many adult men would volunteer to be circumcised?
(pardon me for exposing *mainstream* society's sickness)
Travis Bickle
(ugow...@mindspring.com) was seen saying the following in
alt.fan.kate-winslet (<381bad4a...@news.mindspring.com>):
>How many men would shave their legs and armpits
<raises hand> I'm just trying to find an appropriate time to do it.
Hmmm, winter is coming up. Long pants. Ah! There we go.
--
~Engergized by the power of
_ __ _ _ _ _ _
| |/ /__ _| |_ ___( )__ _ __ (_) __ | | |
| ' // _` | __/ _ \/ __) | '_ \| |/ _ \| | |
| . \ (_| | || __/\__ \ | |_) | | __/| | |
|_|\_\__,_|\__\___)(___/ | .__/|_|\___)(_|_)
|_|
:.
this little passage I got memorized:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:35:39 +0100, Jo Gill
>(j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk) was seen saying the following in
>alt.fan.kate-winslet (<kP03tJAL...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk>):
>
>>being a female I hate hairiness on women.
>
>Hairy pits can be sexy though. :) Very European.
*retch*
You really DO want to become a Brit, don't you!?
--
\|/ ____ \|/ _ _ ` _ '
//// @~/ ,. \~@ o' \,=./ `o - (_) -
(o -) /_( \__/ )_\ (o o) ' `
+-----------ooO--(_)--Ooo-----\__U_/----ooO--(_)--Ooo------------------+
^ ^
^ .d8888b. d8b 888 888 <cri...@bit-net.com> ^
^ d88P Y88b Y8P 888 888 http://www.bit-net.com/~critter ^
^ 888 888 888 888 ^
^ 888 888d888 888 888888 888888 .d88b. 888d888 ^
^ 888 888P" 888 888 888 d8P Y8b 888P" My Karma ^
^ 888 888 888 888 888 888 88888888 888 ran over your ^
^ Y88b d88P 888 888 Y88b. Y88b. Y8b. 888 Dogma! ^
^ "Y8888P" 888 888 "Y888 "Y888 "Y8888 888 ^
^ ^
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Travis Bickle
>You read the bible, austi...@earthlink.net (Travis Bickle)? Well there's
>this little passage I got memorized:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:35:39 +0100, Jo Gill
>>(j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk) was seen saying the following in
>>alt.fan.kate-winslet (<kP03tJAL...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk>):
>>
>>>being a female I hate hairiness on women.
>>
>>Hairy pits can be sexy though. :) Very European.
>
> *retch*
> You really DO want to become a Brit, don't you!?
A Brit, and part time Frenchmen. :P
Oui, oui.
Jo Gill
<ugow...@mindspring.com> writes
>Ed Felstein <efel...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Jo Gill wrote:
>>>
>>> being a female I hate hairiness on women. I can't stand to have hairy
>>> legs or pits. I can't stand it on other women as well.
>>
>>I'm with you, Jo.
>>I certainly appreciate earthiness in a woman, but I draw the line at
>>underarm and leg hair. If I wanted fur, I'd date a mink.
>
>Let me guess...Ed sees absolutely nothing morally wrong with
>the forcible mutilation of millions of newborn infant penises...
>just a guess. Now to my next point: Women should be as
>ashamed of letting that happen to their sons as they should
>be of letting men *demand* that they shave their body hair.
of him. That's just the way I am. Call it strong willed or call
stubborness.
Do you really think the reason women shave their legs is because of men?
Why would my lesbian friends be just as conscious of their hariness as
my heterosexual friends. In fact it is my best friend (who happens to be
a lesbian) who spends the most on hair removal creams and waxes and
bleaches. It can't be said that it is down to men. If you want to say it
is even due to fashion (which I don't believe is the true answer) then
those magazines suggesting trends are written by women. It's not men
saying which is the 'new' black or the right skirt length or whatever
it's women. It's funny how men still think they have such a hold over
women.
>How many men would shave their legs and armpits and
>wear shoes that destroy their feet, legs and spines?
>How
>many adult men would volunteer to be circumcised?
>(pardon me for exposing *mainstream* society's sickness)
women!
--
Jo Gill
Jo Gill
net.com> writes
>You read the bible, austi...@earthlink.net (Travis Bickle)? Well there's
>this little passage I got memorized:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:35:39 +0100, Jo Gill
>>(j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk) was seen saying the following in
>>alt.fan.kate-winslet (<kP03tJAL...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk>):
>>
>>
>
> *retch*
> You really DO want to become a Brit, don't you!?
national differences should remain. BRITISH WOMEN SHAVE! Or at least
most of them do, some out of their own personal choice may not but on
the whole british women shave. I think you'll find that it is the French
and German women who have a reputation for not shaving. Get your facts
straight.
>
>--
>
>
> \|/ ____ \|/ _ _ ` _ '
> //// @~/ ,. \~@ o' \,=./ `o - (_) -
> (o -) /_( \__/ )_\ (o o) ' `
>+-----------ooO--(_)--Ooo-----\__U_/----ooO--(_)--Ooo------------------+
>^ ^
>^ .d8888b. d8b 888 888 <cri...@bit-net.com> ^
>^ d88P Y88b Y8P 888 888 http://www.bit-net.com/~critter ^
>^ 888 888 888 888 ^
>^ 888 888d888 888 888888 888888 .d88b. 888d888 ^
>^ 888 888P" 888 888 888 d8P Y8b 888P" My Karma ^
>^ 888 888 888 888 888 888 88888888 888 ran over your ^
>^ Y88b d88P 888 888 Y88b. Y88b. Y8b. 888 Dogma! ^
>^ "Y8888P" 888 888 "Y888 "Y888 "Y8888 888 ^
>^ ^
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Jo Gill
Travis Bickle
> Although I am fully into the idea of Europe becoming ONE I think
>national differences should remain. BRITISH WOMEN SHAVE! Or at least
>most of them do,
I know, hehe. :) Most American women shave, but there are some who do
not. All thought my first statement was sarcastic, personally it makes
no difference at all with Kate. She is afterall one of our great
actresses, not to mention sexiest.
--
~Energized by the power of
_____ _ _ _ _
| ____|_ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ _( )__ _ __ | |____| | |
| _| | '_ ` _ \| '_ ` _ \ / _` |/ __| | '_ \| |_ /| | |
| |___| | | | | | | | | | | (_| |\__ \ | |_) | |/ / |_|_|
|_____|_| |_| |_|_| |_| |_|\__,_||___/ | .__/|_/___|(_|_)
|_|
Cheers to Critter
Mike Jenner
armpit hairy in it or not?
Look, each to their own. Women should do as they please (like Jo says) but
personally I find secondary pubic hair (as Bill Brison terms armpit hair) to
be very erotic and I would love to see Kate with hairy armpits.
rich...@my-deja.com
Yes, she does and she reveals them clearly by raising her arms above
her head.
Richard
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Jenner
>
> Yes, she does and she reveals them clearly by raising her arms above
> her head.
>
> Richard
>
>
Thank You!!! That's all I wanted to know!
Travis Bickle
> Ahem.
> OBKate: Titanic, 2:34:34! Check out those LIPS! :D ~~
Mmmmm, Kate :D~~~~~~~
Donald
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:35:39 +0100, Jo Gill
><j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>being a female I hate hairiness on women. I can't stand to have hairy
>>legs or pits. I can't stand it on other women as well. Did you see Julia
>>Roberts at the Notting Hill Premiere? Beast.
>
>I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, why do you think hair grows
>there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
You're right. Women should stop using tampons too. After all, it's just
nature. What's the big deal?
(see how silly you sound?)
Donald
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:35:39 +0100, Jo Gill
>(j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk) was seen saying the following in
>alt.fan.kate-winslet (<kP03tJAL...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk>):
>
>>being a female I hate hairiness on women.
>
>Hairy pits can be sexy though. :) Very European.
Under no circumstances could I agree LESS with you on this!
I find it extremely repulsive.
Travis Bickle
the following in alt.fan.kate-winslet
(<f3MgOEuQBbXGQz55=sCo5c...@4ax.com>):
It doesn't bother me any, tbh. But my original comment was meant
tongue-in-cheek.
--
~Engergized by the power of
_ __ _ _ _ _ _
| |/ /__ _| |_ ___( )__ _ __ (_) __ | | |
| ' // _` | __/ _ \/ __) | '_ \| |/ _ \| | |
| . \ (_| | || __/\__ \ | |_) | | __/| | |
|_|\_\__,_|\__\___)(___/ | .__/|_|\___)(_|_)
|_|
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
Jo Gill
>Oh for crying out loud. Has anyone seen the blessed movie? Are Kate's
>armpit hairy in it or not?
>
>Look, each to their own. Women should do as they please (like Jo says) but
>personally I find secondary pubic hair (as Bill Brison terms armpit hair) to
>be very erotic and I would love to see Kate with hairy armpits.
She does in Jude I seem to remember but not in Titanic.
--
Jo Gill
Jo Gill
net.com> writes
>You read the bible, Jo Gill <j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk>? Well there's this
>little passage I got memorized:
>
>>>
>>> You really DO want to become a Brit, don't you!?
>>national differences should remain. BRITISH WOMEN SHAVE! Or at least
>>the whole british women shave. I think you'll find that it is the French
>>and German women who have a reputation for not shaving. Get your facts
>>straight.
>
I am not and never will be a chickadee. Could you not find something
less irritating to patronise me with.
> might I suggest that it
>is you who need to get your facts straight? I'd no more suggest that Brits
>are hairy than I'd suggest you have the slightest idea what my message was
>about. The "becoming British" theme has become a longstanding source of
>amusement for Mr. Bickle and I.
All very well.
> His statement that the tradition was "very
>European"
Yes, but then you went on to say that he was becoming British as you
say, this is where my confusion arose.
>(and last I checked, the good ol' UK was still part of Europe...)
>certainly fit this theme.
Last time I checked Britain is not the UK!
( I remember having the argument over the distinction between GB and UK
a long time ago and there was a difference concerning Ireland) Last time
I checked I found that in France they spoke French, in Germany, German.
In Spain they in fact spoke Spanish and to my great surprise in Italy
they spoke Italian. In Greece.......I wont go on. I'll think you'll find
that even though Britain agreed to join the EU on many things, it may be
lumped into the continent of Europe but I'll think you'll find A LOT of
differences between countries ESPECIALLY on an island floating in the
North Sea away from the continent. Brazil is a a part of South America
just as much as Argentina is but they have EXTREMELY different views and
values. Not to mention the fact that in Brazil they speak Portugese and
in Argentina they speak Spanish.
You chose to ignore my one and only point that BRITISH WOMEN SHAVE.
French women and German women are reknowned for NOT shaving. That was my
point which was contradicting your point that someone was becoming
British because of hairy pitted women which would be wrong.
> Ahem.
> OBKate: Titanic, 2:34:34! Check out those LIPS! :D ~~
>
Ian Macdonald
<no@email> wrote:
>>I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, why do you think hair grows
>>there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
>
>You're right. Women should stop using tampons too. After all, it's just
>nature. What's the big deal?
>
>
>(see how silly you sound?)
On the contrary. You're comparing apples and pears here.
There are good practical reasons for a woman to use tampons, like not
wanting to soil her knickers. No such practical consideration accounts
for women shaving their armpits or legs; it's purely a question of
social indoctrination.
Ian
--
Ian Macdonald | He only knew his iron spine held up the sky
Red Hat Certified Engineer | -- he didn't realize his brain had fallen
http://www.caliban.org/ | to the ground. -- The Book of Serenity
Ian Macdonald
<j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn81h0e...@caliban.xs4all.nl>, Ian Macdonald
><i...@caliban.org> writes
>>
>>I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, why do you think hair grows
>>there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
>
>Nature says I should eat beef and pork. I don't. I'm not vegetarian I
>just don't like the taste. Is that fashionable?
Eating is a primal urge, shaving off one's bodily hair isn't.
>I think you'll find that most women look prettier with hair on their
>heads.
I would argue the same about the rest of their bodily hair.
>You could say that fashion dictates what's beautiful but I do
>not believe that to be true.
Really? You only need to look back across the past few decades for
irrefutable proof that this is indeed the case.
>Fashion can mean something different for each individual
Fashion is by definition precisely non-individualistic in nature, a
crutch for those lacking their own identity.
>I think you'll find that smooth legs are the sexiest thing ever.
I'm afraid you're wrong, since I don't find that at all. I prefer a
woman to look like a woman, not a living incarnation of a Barbi doll.
>I love the feel of my legs after I've shaved them. It's much nicer
>than this stubbly stuff which some go for.
If that's what you go for, good for you, but I think you should be
aware of the years of social conditioning that have strongly suggested
that idea of beauty to you.
>I choose to shave my armpits because I prefer it.
Why? What do you gain from it? Do you feel more feminine?
>MY friend likes to shave her bikini line like a porn actress which I
>don't think looks very nice so I don't.
Because you apparently associate connotations of vulgarity with doing
so. Again, that's social conditioning at work. The same applies to
body piercing, tattoos, and many other forms of self-expression.
Ian
--
Ian Macdonald | Excellent time to become a missing person.
Red Hat Certified Engineer |
http://www.caliban.org/ |
Travis Bickle
>Eating is a primal urge, shaving off one's bodily hair isn't.
Oh no? When I itch, I want to cure the itch. When my face itches, the
only true cure is to shave.
--
~Energized by the power of
_____ _ _ _ _
| ____)_ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ _( )__ _ __ | |___| | |
| _) | '_ ` _ \| '_ ` _ \ / _` |/ __) | '_ \| |_ / | |
| |___| | | | | | | | | | | (_| |\__ \ | |_) | |/ /|_|_|
|_____)_| |_| |_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|(___/ | .__/|_/___)_|_)
|_|
Cheers to Critter
Ian Macdonald
<austi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 6 Nov 1999 22:29:13 GMT, Ian Macdonald (i...@caliban.org) was seen
>saying the following in alt.fan.kate-winslet
>(<slrn829at...@caliban.xs4all.nl>):
>>
>>Eating is a primal urge, shaving off one's bodily hair isn't.
>
>Oh no? When I itch, I want to cure the itch. When my face itches, the
>only true cure is to shave.
If you left your facial hair on a little longer, you'd find the itch
went away on its own; or do you think bearded men are constantly dying
to scratch an itch they could solve by having a shave?
Anyway, this is all rather off-topic.
Ian
--
Ian Macdonald | You will be attacked by a beast who has the
Red Hat Certified Engineer | body of a wolf, the tail of a lion, and the
http://www.caliban.org/ | face of Donald Duck.
Travis Bickle
>If you left your facial hair on a little longer, you'd find the itch
>went away on its own; or do you think bearded men are constantly dying
>to scratch an itch they could solve by having a shave?
True, but I can't be arsed to let it grow that long.
--
~Engergized by the power of
_ __ _ _ _ _ _
| |/ /__ _| |_ ___( )__ _ __ (_) __ | | |
| ' // _` | __/ _ \/ __) | '_ \| |/ _ \| | |
| . \ (_| | || __/\__ \ | |_) | | __/| | |
|_|\_\__,_|\__\___)(___/ | .__/|_|\___)(_|_)
|_|
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
Jo Gill
<i...@caliban.org> writes
>On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:42:42 -0500, Donald
><no@email> wrote:
>
>>>there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
>>
>>nature. What's the big deal?
>>
>>
>>(see how silly you sound?)
>
>On the contrary. You're comparing apples and pears here.
>
>There are good practical reasons for a woman to use tampons, like not
>wanting to soil her knickers. No such practical consideration accounts
>for women shaving their armpits or legs; it's purely a question of
>social indoctrination.
>
all the sweat caught up in hair. It is practical and logical. Women
don't want to smell. Men don't care so much if they smell.
>Ian
--
Jo Gill
Jo Gill
<i...@caliban.org> writes>>In article <slrn81h0e...@caliban.xs4all.nl>, Ian Macdonald
>><i...@caliban.org> writes
>>>
>>>I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, why do you think hair grows
>>>there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
to this crazy man called Darwin? Have we not evolved so that we do not
need this hair on our bodies. Soon we will probably have no hair on our
legs, arms or pits. Soon we will lose our little fingers as they are no
longer of use, and our little toes. They have no use just as underarm or
leg hair.
>>
>>Nature says I should eat beef and pork. I don't. I'm not vegetarian I
>>just don't like the taste. Is that fashionable?
>
>
>>heads.
>
>I would argue the same about the rest of their bodily hair.
>
>>You could say that fashion dictates what's beautiful but I do
>>not believe that to be true.
>
>Really? You only need to look back across the past few decades for
>irrefutable proof that this is indeed the case.
thinks Angelina Jolie is pretty I agree with her because she has an
individual look unlike anyone else. When she says she thinks Melissa
Joan hart ispretty I disagree because she looks bland and nothing is
particularly attention grabbing about her. I can't define what I find to
be pretty in women because it's something different everytime. If I was
to follow fashion of any decade I would be able to pinpoint my point of
reference of prettiness to a certain look and I can't. It's far more
personal than you're making it out to be.
>
>>Fashion can mean something different for each individual
>
>Fashion is by definition precisely non-individualistic in nature, a
>crutch for those lacking their own identity.
I would, but I don't. If I wanted to wear a bin bag I would. I don't
however because neither of these is practical or flattering.
>
>>I think you'll find that smooth legs are the sexiest thing ever.
>
>I'm afraid you're wrong, since I don't find that at all. I prefer a
>woman to look like a woman, not a living incarnation of a Barbi doll.
legs and pits. Oh, I just checked I do still have my genitals and
nipples, so therefore I am not a barbie doll. What I was trying to
suggest was that smooth legs FEEL a hell of a lot more sexy than a
beasty hairy thing.
>
>>I love the feel of my legs after I've shaved them. It's much nicer
>>than this stubbly stuff which some go for.
>
>If that's what you go for, good for you, but I think you should be
>aware of the years of social conditioning that have strongly suggested
>that idea of beauty to you.
personally have not been subject to many years of social conditioning. I
have only been aware of my figure for about five years.
>>I choose to shave my armpits because I prefer it.
>
>Why? What do you gain from it? Do you feel more feminine?
pits which is accentuated by underarm hair. I don't like the feel of
hairy armpits. I am a generally unhairy person. I have virtually no hair
on my arms unlike some of my friends and I have very little hair on my
legs so I am used to having less hair on me. When I was a child I had
none of this hair and I had less problems then maybe it's because I want
to be young again. Maybe that explains why I wear my hair in bunches.
>
>>MY friend likes to shave her bikini line like a porn actress which I
>>don't think looks very nice so I don't.
>
>Because you apparently associate connotations of vulgarity with doing
>so. Again, that's social conditioning at work.
experience with waxing my bikini line. Maybe I find that all a bit too
much effort. Maybe I find it sexier to have more pubic hair.
>The same applies to
>body piercing, tattoos, and many other forms of self-expression.
If I wanted a tattoo I would get one but I don't want to subject myself
to that much pain, and I don't want anything that permanent. Is that due
to social conditioning? Is it because I'm afraid of committing myself to
something permanent. Or when tattooes become fashionable will I jump on
the bandwagon and get one?
Anyway, what makes you OH so special for resisting this social
conditioning?
>
>Ian
--
Jo Gill
Jo Gill
Travis Bickle <austi...@earthlink.net> writes
>On 7 Nov 1999 18:21:35 GMT, Ian Macdonald (i...@caliban.org) was seen
>saying the following in alt.fan.kate-winslet
>(<slrn82bgp...@caliban.xs4all.nl>):
>>
>>If you left your facial hair on a little longer, you'd find the itch
>>went away on its own; or do you think bearded men are constantly dying
>>to scratch an itch they could solve by having a shave?
>
>True, but I can't be arsed to let it grow that long.
>
--
Jo Gill
Ed Felstein
>
> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:11:39 +0100, Jo Gill
> <j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrn81h0e...@caliban.xs4all.nl>, Ian Macdonald
> ><i...@caliban.org> writes
> >>
> >>I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, why do you think hair grows
> >>there in the first place? Nature, that's why.
> >
> >just don't like the taste. Is that fashionable?
>
> Eating is a primal urge, shaving off one's bodily hair isn't.
What is this business about "primal urges"?? If we all followed our
primal urges to the exclusion of all else there would be no such thing
as civilization. Do you wash your body, sir? Do you brush your teeth?
Are you conscientious in donning clean linens before going out to
intermingle with your fellowmen? If so, WHY???? If rejecting societal
standards and exclusively abiding by the rules of nature is so important
to you, then why don't you just go caveman and cease ALL forms of
artifice, including personal hygiene??
> >I think you'll find that most women look prettier with hair on their
> >heads.
>
> I would argue the same about the rest of their bodily hair.
OKAY!!! That's YOUR opinion!! WHY are you trying so desperately to
impose your views on the rest of us???
> >You could say that fashion dictates what's beautiful but I do
> >not believe that to be true.
>
> Really? You only need to look back across the past few decades for
> irrefutable proof that this is indeed the case.
Fashion can NEVER dictate what is beautiful because true beauty is
always in the eye of the beholder. I happen to be in sync with the
ideal of beauty that was popular in the 1950s, when women with healthy,
sensual, voluptuous figures were considered perfection. Then the Twiggy
craze hit in the '60s, and it's been all heroin-chic from there. But
thirty years of being inculcated with that same ideal has not made me
change what I personally find beautiful.
> >Fashion can mean something different for each individual
>
> Fashion is by definition precisely non-individualistic in nature, a
> crutch for those lacking their own identity.
You are partly correct here, but this very subject is something I have
discussed often with many people. It always makes me laugh when
hard-line feminists come out against publications like Playboy -- and
other forms of erotic expression that they claim objectify women -- but
they are perfectly happy with something like Cosmopolitan, which I think
does infinitely more damage, both to an individual woman's self-image
and to the position of women in society in general. Kate Winslet
herself once fell victim to this mass hysteria... witness her emaciated
and unhealthy appearance on Oscar night 1996 (and her subsequent remarks
about that period in her life).
> >I love the feel of my legs after I've shaved them. It's much nicer
> >than this stubbly stuff which some go for.
>
> If that's what you go for, good for you, but I think you should be
> aware of the years of social conditioning that have strongly suggested
> that idea of beauty to you.
Boy, do you have a lot to learn about Jo.
Why are you so insistent that people's attitudes are 100% dictated by
social conditioning?? And what about your ability to see past it --
don't you think that there are some women in the world who have that
same ability?? It's pretty insulting to Jo, and to women in general, to
suggest that they are all victims of society and need the words of one
Ian McDonald to bring them out of their torpor. What if it isn't social
conditioning at all?? What if a woman just PREFERS to shave??!! Is
that so terrible?? Denigrating someone's personal taste just because
you feel uncomfortable with it is very bad medicine.
Travis Bickle
>Also, beards are extremely unhygenenic and impractical.
Tis why I stick with moustaches. :)
--
~Energized by the power of
_____ _ _ _ _
| ____)_ __ ___ _ __ ___ __ _( )__ _ __ | |___| | |
| _) | '_ ` _ \| '_ ` _ \ / _` |/ __) | '_ \| |_ / | |
| |___| | | | | | | | | | | (_| |\__ \ | |_) | |/ /|_|_|
|_____)_| |_| |_|_| |_| |_|\__,_|(___/ | .__/|_/___)_|_)
|_|
Cheers to Critter
Jo Gill
>Boy, do you have a lot to learn about Jo.
>Why are you so insistent that people's attitudes are 100% dictated by
>social conditioning?? And what about your ability to see past it --
>don't you think that there are some women in the world who have that
>same ability?? It's pretty insulting to Jo, and to women in general, to
>suggest that they are all victims of society and need the words of one
>Ian McDonald to bring them out of their torpor. What if it isn't social
>conditioning at all?? What if a woman just PREFERS to shave??!! Is
>that so terrible?? Denigrating someone's personal taste just because
>you feel uncomfortable with it is very bad medicine.
Ed, I'm speechless. I'm touched by the way in which you have stood up
for me and all women and underlined my opinion much better than I ever
could. Thank you. I agree with you whole heartedly.
--
Jo Gill
Ed Felstein
Jo Gill
<efel...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes
>Thanks, Jo. That meant a lot.
fans must stick together!
--
Jo Gill
Ian Macdonald
<efel...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>What is this business about "primal urges"?? If we all followed our
>primal urges to the exclusion of all else there would be no such thing
>as civilization.
True, but I wasn't advocating the abandonment of all forms of
civilization, just awareness of the processes that dictate what is
socially acceptable and what isn't.
>Do you wash your body, sir? Do you brush your teeth? Are you
>conscientious in donning clean linens before going out to intermingle
>with your fellowmen?
Yes.
>If so, WHY????
Considerations of personal hygiene and preventive care.
For example, if I don't brush my teeth, they will decay, fall out or
need removing, and incur substantial costs. Also, my breath will
stink.
On the other hand, of the women I've known who chose not to shave
their armpits, none has thus far lost her arms as a result.
>If rejecting societal standards and exclusively abiding by the rules
>of nature is so important to you, then why don't you just go caveman
>and cease ALL forms of artifice, including personal hygiene??
Quote exactly where I claimed that, if you would. I said no such
thing.
>> I would argue the same about the rest of their bodily hair.
>
>OKAY!!! That's YOUR opinion!! WHY are you trying so desperately to
>impose your views on the rest of us???
I'm simply putting forward an argument, which is a necessary part of
any debate, which is what Usenet is all about.
It makes no odds to me what you choose to believe, or whether you are
convinced by my arguments. I merely put them to you. Why are you so
defensive?
>Fashion can NEVER dictate what is beautiful because true beauty is
>always in the eye of the beholder. I happen to be in sync with the
>ideal of beauty that was popular in the 1950s, when women with healthy,
>sensual, voluptuous figures were considered perfection.
First you say fashion can never dictate beauty, then you refer to the
notion of beauty fashionable in the fifties. Don't you see a
contradiction here?
>Then the Twiggy craze hit in the '60s, and it's been all heroin-chic
>from there. But thirty years of being inculcated with that same
>ideal has not made me change what I personally find beautiful.
It doesn't change social trends though, does it? We're talking about
society as a whole here, passively following the majority in their
adherence to fashion.
In this context, your refusal to accept the modern notion of
emaciation as a form of beauty is akin to a woman not shaving her
armpits or legs. Both are a rejection of current western perceptions
of beauty.
>> Fashion is by definition precisely non-individualistic in nature, a
>> crutch for those lacking their own identity.
>
>You are partly correct here, but this very subject is something I have
>discussed often with many people. It always makes me laugh when
>hard-line feminists come out against publications like Playboy -- and
>other forms of erotic expression that they claim objectify women -- but
>they are perfectly happy with something like Cosmopolitan,
Wow, I've never met a feminist who held Cosmopolitan in high regard.
>which I think does infinitely more damage, both to an individual
>woman's self-image and to the position of women in society in
>general.
I would tend to agree with you on this point.
>Why are you so insistent that people's attitudes are 100% dictated by
>social conditioning??
Because your environment defines who you are. You can passively fall
in line with the subtle (or not so subtle) pressures of the society
you live in, or you can choose to rebel against them. Either way, you
are still a product of that environment.
>It's pretty insulting to Jo, and to women in general, to suggest that
>they are all victims of society and need the words of one Ian
>McDonald to bring them out of their torpor.
There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. I don't
necessarily view being a product of one's time and environment as
being akin to being a victim of society.
>What if it isn't social conditioning at all?? What if a woman just
>PREFERS to shave??!!
Of course it's social conditioning. Do you seriously believe it's a
sheer coincidence that the vast majority of women in western society
prefer to shave their legs and armpits, while the vast majority of
western men don't?
Ian
--
Ian Macdonald | You cannot see the wood for the trees. --
Red Hat Certified Engineer | John Heywood
http://www.caliban.org/ |
Ian Macdonald
<j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn829at...@caliban.xs4all.nl>, Ian Macdonald
><i...@caliban.org> writes
>
>Yes, and did we not have hair all over our bodies at one point according
>to this crazy man called Darwin? Have we not evolved so that we do not
>need this hair on our bodies. Soon we will probably have no hair on our
>legs, arms or pits.
So your argument now is that your bodily hair is superfluous, and that
it should therefore be shaved off?
What about the hair on your head? Your appendix? Your tonsils? All of
these are now surplus to requirements and thus presumably candidates
for removal in your eyes.
>Soon we will lose our little fingers as they are no longer of use,
>and our little toes. They have no use just as underarm or leg hair.
So what's your point? That evolution's not progressing at a fast
enough pace for your taste?
>REally? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When my friend says she
>thinks Angelina Jolie is pretty I agree with her because she has an
>individual look unlike anyone else.
So in a world where more people looked like her, she would be less
pretty to you, even though she looked no different than she does now?
You don't think that's an example of society shaping your perceptions?
>If I wanted to wear goosefeathered trousers I would, but I don't. If
>I wanted to wear a bin bag I would. I don't however because neither
>of these is practical or flattering.
Fashion rarely favours the practical. Just look at pencil skirts and
high heels. How many women have you seen tottering along, crippling
their feet for the sake of looking good?
>Hmm, god I hope I don't look like a Barbie doll just because I shave my
>legs and pits.
Well, it definitely removes two of the differences, whichever way you
look at it ;-)
>What I was trying to suggest was that smooth legs FEEL a hell of a
>lot more sexy than a beasty hairy thing.
Not when your idea of a sexy woman is a woman whose body is still
adorned by the hair Mother Nature saw fit to make grow on
it. Baldness, breast enlargement, rhinoplasty and other cosmetic
enhancements are wasted on me.
You, on the other hand, openly admit to associating hairiness with
beastliness, which I can well imagine if you've only ever been
subjected to sanitised western ideals of femininity.
>Have they really? I have only been on this earth 17 years, so I
>personally have not been subject to many years of social
>conditioning.
On the contrary. Your childhood years are your most formative, as any
psychologist worth his salt will tell you. Most of your social
conditioning has thus already taken place.
>I have only been aware of my figure for about five years.
Since you were 12, which is social pressures at play once again.
There's nothing wrong with any of this, by the way; this is the way
it's been for aeons and aeons. But to suggest immunity from the
process of social conditioning is simply naīve.
>I don't like the feel of hairy armpits.
So don't put your hand there. I rarely find the need to.
Or do you mean you were constantly aware of the sensation of having
hair in your armpits until the first time you shaved it off? I don't
believe that. More likely that shaving has made you accustomed to the
sensation of being bald, so that you now feel the hair when it grows
back.
>>>MY friend likes to shave her bikini line like a porn actress which I
>>>don't think looks very nice so I don't.
>>
>Maybe I find that all a bit too much effort.
Shaving legs and armpits is also unnecessary effort. Saving time can
clearly not be your motivation for shaving one part of your body, but
leaving another intact, or you would realise you could save even more
time.
>Maybe I find it sexier to have more pubic hair.
So what's the intrinsic difference concerning hair between genitalia
and arms/legs? Why would a hairy pussy be sexy, but a hairy armpit
not? Hair is hair, flesh is flesh. Wherever that hair grows, it grows
there naturally.
>>The same applies to body piercing, tattoos, and many other forms of
>>self-expression.
>
>Yes, this is SELF-expression is it not? So it is down to the
>individual.
So it must be a coincidence that a much greater number of people now
have tattoos and body piercings compared to 10 years ago, right? All
these people suddenly realised they were individuals and started to
express themselves independently of social trends, is that what you're
saying?
>If I wanted a tattoo I would get one but I don't want to subject myself
>to that much pain, and I don't want anything that permanent. Is that due
>to social conditioning?
No, that's good common sense. But plenty of people who wouldn't have
considered a tattoo 10 years ago on grounds of taste and vulgarity,
now sport one. Coincidence? The same goes for nose piercings.
>Is it because I'm afraid of committing myself to something permanent.
Well, you just said so yourself in the previous paragraph.
>Or when tattooes become fashionable will I jump on the bandwagon and
>get one?
Quite possibly; many people do.
>Anyway, what makes you OH so special for resisting this social
>conditioning?
Nothing. I never claimed to be immune, and I'm not; but I am aware of
it.
Ian
--
Ian Macdonald | Hubbard's Law: Don't take life too
Red Hat Certified Engineer | seriously; you won't get out of it alive.
Mike Jenner
I ought to get some sort of award for creating the longest, loudest debate
in this group. Ever!
Jo Gill
<i...@caliban.org> writes
beautiful were in fashion in the 50s. It is not so much a contradiction
as a coincidence.
>
>>Then the Twiggy craze hit in the '60s, and it's been all heroin-chic
>>from there. But thirty years of being inculcated with that same
>>ideal has not made me change what I personally find beautiful.
>
>It doesn't change social trends though, does it? We're talking about
>society as a whole here, passively following the majority in their
>adherence to fashion.
>
>In this context, your refusal to accept the modern notion of
>emaciation as a form of beauty is akin to a woman not shaving her
>armpits or legs. Both are a rejection of current western perceptions
>of beauty.
>
>>> Fashion is by definition precisely non-individualistic in nature, a
>>> crutch for those lacking their own identity.
>>
>>You are partly correct here, but this very subject is something I have
>>discussed often with many people. It always makes me laugh when
>>hard-line feminists come out against publications like Playboy -- and
>>other forms of erotic expression that they claim objectify women -- but
>>they are perfectly happy with something like Cosmopolitan,
>
>Wow, I've never met a feminist who held Cosmopolitan in high regard.
>
>>which I think does infinitely more damage, both to an individual
>>woman's self-image and to the position of women in society in
>>general.
>
>I would tend to agree with you on this point.
>
>>Why are you so insistent that people's attitudes are 100% dictated by
>>social conditioning??
>
>Because your environment defines who you are.
>You can passively fall
>in line with the subtle (or not so subtle) pressures of the society
>you live in, or you can choose to rebel against them. Either way, you
>are still a product of that environment.
>
>>It's pretty insulting to Jo, and to women in general, to suggest that
>>they are all victims of society and need the words of one Ian
>>McDonald to bring them out of their torpor.
>
>There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. I don't
>necessarily view being a product of one's time and environment as
>being akin to being a victim of society.
did.
>
>>What if it isn't social conditioning at all?? What if a woman just
>>PREFERS to shave??!!
>
>Of course it's social conditioning. Do you seriously believe it's a
>sheer coincidence that the vast majority of women in western society
>prefer to shave their legs and armpits, while the vast majority of
>western men don't?
>
>Ian
--
Jo Gill
Jo Gill
> and
>high heels.
Evil things. I haven't worn heels for ages. Although I am quite short so
I do appreciate the boost.
> How many women have you seen tottering along, crippling
>their feet for the sake of looking good?
womens feet. High heels really target the ankles and the back without
the woman noticing it and leads to problems later on in life. But,
strappy heels do draw more attention to the legs and make them more
shaply so they do look more sexy.
>
>>Hmm, god I hope I don't look like a Barbie doll just because I shave my
>>legs and pits.
>
>Well, it definitely removes two of the differences, whichever way you
>look at it ;-)
barbie jokes any more!!! I'm actually very bored with my hair colour and
would like to try it another colour, so that's not really down to social
conditoning about feeling dumber as a blonde because I am still me
whatever my hair colour. Although, it would be useful if my IQ increased
by colouring my hair.
>
>>What I was trying to suggest was that smooth legs FEEL a hell of a
>>lot more sexy than a beasty hairy thing.
>
>Not when your idea of a sexy woman is a woman whose body is still
>adorned by the hair Mother Nature saw fit to make grow on
>it. Baldness, breast enlargement, rhinoplasty and other cosmetic
>enhancements are wasted on me.
my own personal view. This is not because I think it's nature. I believe
that you've got what you've got and that's your lot and you have to make
the best of what you've got. I do believe that if a woman gets breats
cancer and has to have a breast removed then plastic surgery is
perfectly allowable though. So there are exceptions.
>
>You, on the other hand, openly admit to associating hairiness with
>beastliness, which I can well imagine if you've only ever been
>subjected to sanitised western ideals of femininity.
Humans are the least hairy apart from amphibians, reptiles and fish but
these aren't beasts. When I see a man with an extremely hairy back, I
think 'missing link' or 'prehistoric'. Evolution is a continuing process
and we are only at one stage and social conditioning is part of this
stage and has been part of this stage since recorded history and even
before this.
>
>>Have they really? I have only been on this earth 17 years, so I
>>personally have not been subject to many years of social
>>conditioning.
>
>On the contrary. Your childhood years are your most formative, as any
>psychologist worth his salt will tell you. Most of your social
>conditioning has thus already taken place.
confirm their idea and use it and say it's fact. It's not absolutely
certain and never will be. I would say the most formative time is
teenage years but then I would.
>
>>I have only been aware of my figure for about five years.
>
>Since you were 12, which is social pressures at play once again.
pressure then I'll accept your argument.
>
>There's nothing wrong with any of this, by the way; this is the way
>it's been for aeons and aeons. But to suggest immunity from the
>process of social conditioning is simply naīve.
BLATANTLY generalised the role and thoughts of all women and THAT I
resent. That is simply naive!
>
>>I don't like the feel of hairy armpits.
>
>So don't put your hand there. I rarely find the need to.
head is a nice feeling. Any therapist worth her salt will tell you that.
>
>Or do you mean you were constantly aware of the sensation of having
>hair in your armpits until the first time you shaved it off?
> I don't
>believe that. More likely that shaving has made you accustomed to the
>sensation of being bald,
yes I have become accustomed to it.
> so that you now feel the hair when it grows
>back.
>
>>>>MY friend likes to shave her bikini line like a porn actress which I
>>>>don't think looks very nice so I don't.
>>>
>>Maybe I find that all a bit too much effort.
>
>Shaving legs and armpits is also unnecessary effort.
> Saving time can
>clearly not be your motivation for shaving one part of your body,
> but
>leaving another intact, or you would realise you could save even more
>time.
>
>>Maybe I find it sexier to have more pubic hair.
>
>So what's the intrinsic difference concerning hair between genitalia
>and arms/legs? Why would a hairy pussy be sexy, but a hairy armpit
>not?
>Hair is hair, flesh is flesh. Wherever that hair grows, it grows
>there naturally.
world is so irrevocably beyond natural because of evolution. We now use
cars, mobile phones, planes, food blenders. These are all things which
have progressed since the stone age. EVER since time began men and women
have been intrisically different and I believe that these differences
should be celebrated and yes, it does happen that society has developed
an identity for men and women. Therefore to get along in this world most
people stick to this well developed code, just as people stick to the
well developed code of language. I never denied that I was immune to
social conditioning as I KNOW I definitely am not. However, I do not
believe that to be the simple to answer to many of your arguments.
>
>>>The same applies to body piercing, tattoos, and many other forms of
>>>self-expression.
>>
>>Yes, this is SELF-expression is it not? So it is down to the
>>individual.
>
>So it must be a coincidence that a much greater number of people now
>have tattoos and body piercings compared to 10 years ago, right?
> All
>these people suddenly realised they were individuals and started to
>express themselves independently of social trends, is that what you're
>saying?
slaves to fashion but that's not everyone. That is down to their
insecurity which is not ROOTED in social trends. It is rooted deeper
than that. If I wanted to pierce my nose or my nipple to be different
that would be my way of expressing my difference. Someone else may
choose to have a rolling stones song tattooed on their arse. That's
their choice. Just because someone else has done this before does not
mean that they are following social trends. They may be influenced by
what is considered good, and they may decide to rebel against this. This
is what I would call HUMAN NATURE. Some people are very contrary and
some are sheep in a flock. This is hardly due to social condition but
due to the human condition. It's not all done to one thing. This is the
point I'm trying to get across.
>
>>If I wanted a tattoo I would get one but I don't want to subject myself
>>to that much pain, and I don't want anything that permanent. Is that due
>>to social conditioning?
>
>No, that's good common sense.
> But plenty of people who wouldn't have
>considered a tattoo 10 years ago on grounds of taste and vulgarity,
>now sport one. Coincidence?
distinct nature, social trends and conditioning are merely toyed around
by these people's character during their lifetime.
>The same goes for nose piercings.
>
>>Is it because I'm afraid of committing myself to something permanent.
>
>Well, you just said so yourself in the previous paragraph.
>
>>Or when tattooes become fashionable will I jump on the bandwagon and
>>get one?
>
>Quite possibly; many people do.
to be fashionable. I must admit I know a few. Most people I know will do
things because they like it. It just so happens that my friend got a
bellyring just before everyone else did because she saw another friend
with it and thought it looked nice. She's a very decorative person,
always finding new ways to decorate her body. I'm very plain. I don't
have any piercings or tattooes because I don't like them. I tried
earrings but I thought I looked hideous, and it was too much hassle to
put earrings in. Another reason I stopped wearing earrings was because
of infection. I am very different from my friend who likes to pierce and
tattoo herself and paint herself. This is due to our different
personalities, she's very artistic I'm more simplistic.
>
>>Anyway, what makes you OH so special for resisting this social
>>conditioning?
>
>Nothing. I never claimed to be immune, and I'm not; but I am aware of
>it.
in the world. I think the reason that any social conditioning came about
in the first place was due to human beings, their preferences and
personalities.
>
>Ian
--
Jo Gill
Ian Macdonald
<j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrn82gq6...@caliban.xs4all.nl>, Ian Macdonald
><i...@caliban.org> writes
>>
>>First you say fashion can never dictate beauty, then you refer to the
>>notion of beauty fashionable in the fifties. Don't you see a
>>contradiction here?
>
>Not really. It just so happened that the women he believes to be
>beautiful were in fashion in the 50s. It is not so much a contradiction
>as a coincidence.
The point is that if the look of those women was deemed beautiful in
the fifties, that is a prime example of fashion dictating notions of
beauty. That the original poster's taste coincides with this is
neither here nor there. The issue is that fashion does indeed dictate
notions of beauty.
>>Because your environment defines who you are.
>
>It doesn't define, it refines.
Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. No-one lives in a vacuum.
Why do you think you wear clothes instead of walking around naked? Why
do you speak English instead of Chinese? What defines your morals and
social conscience?
You surely don't think it's genetic?
>>There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. I don't
>>necessarily view being a product of one's time and environment as
>>being akin to being a victim of society.
>
>The way you expressed your argument led both of us to belive that you
>did.
It depends on the partiuclar consequence of the conditioning that
we're talking about.
FWIW, I _do_ believe that anyone who thinks that she just happens to
like doing something as odd as shaving off her natural hair growth,
while this is coincidentally the prevalent behaviour of the society
she lives in, is being distinctly naïve.
That's like a Moslem in Iran thinking that he objectively arrived at
the decision to believe in Allah.
But hey, don't let me deter you; it's only one man's opinion.
>>Of course it's social conditioning. Do you seriously believe it's a
>>sheer coincidence that the vast majority of women in western society
>>prefer to shave their legs and armpits, while the vast majority of
>>western men don't?
>
>Men are hardly as vain as women though. This is their nature.
Most men don't experience the pressures that cause vanity, since their
appearance isn't stressed as much by western society.
Ian
--
Ian Macdonald | If you always postpone pleasure you will
Red Hat Certified Engineer | never have it. Quit work and play for
http://www.caliban.org/ | once!
Jo Gill
<i...@caliban.org> writes
>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:10:34 +0000, Jo Gill
><j...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <slrn82gq6...@caliban.xs4all.nl>, Ian Macdonald
>><i...@caliban.org> writes
>>>
>>>First you say fashion can never dictate beauty, then you refer to the
>>>notion of beauty fashionable in the fifties. Don't you see a
>>>contradiction here?
>>
>>Not really. It just so happened that the women he believes to be
>>beautiful were in fashion in the 50s. It is not so much a contradiction
>>as a coincidence.
>
>The point is that if the look of those women was deemed beautiful in
>the fifties, that is a prime example of fashion dictating notions of
>beauty. That the original poster's taste coincides with this is
>neither here nor there. The issue is that fashion does indeed dictate
>notions of beauty.
he preferred the voluptuous women of the fifties.
>
>>>Because your environment defines who you are.
>>
>>It doesn't define, it refines.
>
>Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. No-one lives in a vacuum.
person.
>
>Why do you think you wear clothes instead of walking around naked?
year.
> Why
>do you speak English instead of Chinese?
would be useful.
>What defines your morals and
>social conscience?
generally don't kill people because you get prosecuted. I tend not to
lie because people always find out, this is an example of a past
experience, not society dictating. Society dictates morals, this I
totally agree with you on, but then if you think about it, don't you
believe that most morals are good in the way that they accomodate for
all human beings to live a comfortable life together. I'm sure you do.
Society is a part of life, it's not some horrible, unnatural thing which
you are making it out to be. Society is around because of man. One came
before the other, basic knowledge will tell you which.
>
>You surely don't think it's genetic?
belief. Not fact. It is opinion, so you are free to argue against it.
>
>>>There you go again, trying to put words into my mouth. I don't
>>>necessarily view being a product of one's time and environment as
>>>being akin to being a victim of society.
>>
>>The way you expressed your argument led both of us to belive that you
>>did.
>
>It depends on the partiuclar consequence of the conditioning that
>we're talking about.
>
>FWIW, I _do_ believe that anyone who thinks that she just happens to
>like doing something as odd as shaving off her natural hair growth,
>while this is coincidentally the prevalent behaviour of the society
>she lives in, is being distinctly naïve.
But, I'm telling you that if the prevalent behaviour of society changed,
I would still continue to do so. This would be out of habit, which would
of course be due to my MANY years of social conditioning. So what if it
is? Many practices which were natural in days gone by have flown out the
window. Is this such a bad thing. There is no longer capital punishment.
I believe this to be a good thing. No life should be taken by another
human being even if that human being is evil and has taken the life of a
human being.
Anyway, I do agree with you. I do shave because I do feel sexy with
smoother legs and arms, and this is due to social conditioning. But I
believe that I do prefer it to having hair on my legs now, maybe out of
habit. However, I do believe I can judge for myself what feels sexier
and what doesn't (Incidentally I do think that Kate is one of a few
women who can carry off underarm hair, just to keep it on topic
slightly).
>
>That's like a Moslem in Iran thinking that he objectively arrived at
>the decision to believe in Allah.
Just as with my analogy of capital punishment it doesn't quite relate in
the same way. Religion, arm pit shaving, weighed up are slightly
different. Although I see your point. I think all people have a belief
in them that there is something else out there. I think most people have
a belief, or want to believe there's something higher than humans.
Whether it's aliens, or a god, or gods or something undistinguishable I
think there is that belief. Religion just gives people something to
focus on, this is where all religions relate.
>
>But hey, don't let me deter you; it's only one man's opinion.
I was objecting to this idea of fashion victims anyway and the way you
seemed to be ACCUSING me of being one, which I do not like. The only
thing I am victim to is prejudice. The only thing everyone is victim to
is prejudice, and I doubt this will ever change.
>
>>>Of course it's social conditioning. Do you seriously believe it's a
>>>sheer coincidence that the vast majority of women in western society
>>>prefer to shave their legs and armpits, while the vast majority of
>>>western men don't?
>>
>>Men are hardly as vain as women though. This is their nature.
>
>Most men don't experience the pressures that cause vanity, since their
>appearance isn't stressed as much by western society.
What I find funny now is that it is. Men are becoming more vain as women
are demanding more of men as they expect the same effort to be taken.
This makes me laugh. Just as you prefer a woman who doesn't shave her
arms, more 'natural' as you put it, I prefer a man who doesn't take time
on his looks. He could be wearing a potato sack and I'd still love him
(that would probably make me laugh if he was wearing a potato sack so I
probably would love him more). I wouldn't say a man is more natural by
being less vain. I'd just say that was his nature.
Finis.
By this I mean.....please can this discussion end!!!
>
>Ian
--
Jo Gill