Should Women be Held Accountable for Men's Sexual Feelings?

[Robert.Evans]

Well, I was raised Hindu without any real Religious barriers. I'm sort of in between religions at the moment. I don't even know if I will ever be religious, but I believe in God and have no real issue with any interpretation of God. Guess I'm still finding my own way.

I don't class myself as religious either, though that is the broad title of it all. Nor do I class myself as Christian really, though again that encompasses most of their theology.

 

[savagewind]

If she's actively trying to turn me on, she's partly responsible. But if she's just existing or being in front of me, no.

The problem then is whose idea is acceptable. Define "actively trying to turn on". Dress? Body language? Perceived or intentional? How would you know which? I have heard it said about young children "she was being seductive". I think a person has to know how for it to be true. Don't you?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The problem then is whose idea is acceptable. Define "actively trying to turn on". Dress? Body language? Perceived or intentional? How would you know which? I have heard it said about young children "she was being seductive". I think a person has to know how for it to be true. Don't you?

I was being flippant.
I mean, if a chick is hitting on me and trying to turn me on. You know, normal stuff like that? Pedophiles can't use that excuse because adult sexuality and prepubescent child sexuality are worlds away.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is very hard for me to trust a person who says "God's word says modest clothing is the rule. The rule is so weak men's consciences are not defiled. A bathing suit is not modest clothing so God's rule then becomes beaches are off limits for swimming."

Someone must sacrifice a pleasant day on the beach for the weak consciences of men who might possibly be on the beach that day. So men, it is OK to swim at the beach wearing a T shirt, I guess. But women should not wear bathing suits so beaches are off limits for them according to the one who made swimming pleasurable. It appears swimming is only for men according to some people raising The Bible to be believed.

The comment of swimwear is for both genders. I was speaking to a woman at the time. Perhaps that was misleading.

 

[savagewind]

The comment of swimwear is for both genders. I was speaking to a woman at the time. Perhaps that was misleading.

OK. So God's law is swimming requires too little clothes so it isn't righteous. You do not know how stupid that sounds. Do you?

 

[Robert.Evans]

OK. So God's law is swimming requires too little clothes so it isn't righteous. You do not know how stupid that sounds. Do you?

haha... obviously not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It would be okay in private. It is in public that you should not.

 

[savagewind]

I think people make a big mistake thinking God's word is for getting into righteousness. Isn't it for getting OUT of unrighteousness?

The world is about appearance. The wisdom of 'Paul' is warning women not to be like that. He is saying to women (and NOT for men) do not get dressed up for meeting together. To get dressed up to meet is a WORLDLY endeavor. He is warning against being like the world. He is NOT counseling for being approved by God. If he was it means he ignores Jesus COMMAND , because he is the only one who can COMMAND, do not seek to take out the speck in the eye of another when there is a LOG in yours.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think people make a big mistake thinking God's word is for getting into righteousness. Isn't it for getting OUT of unrighteousness?

The world is about appearance. The wisdom of 'Paul' is warning women not to be like that. He is saying to women (and NOT for men) do not get dressed up for meeting together. To get dressed up to meet is a WORLDLY endeavor. He is warning against being like the world. He is NOT counseling for being approved by God. If he was it means he ignores Jesus COMMAND , because he is the only one who can COMMAND, do not seek to take out the speck in the eye of another when there is a LOG in yours.

If getting dressed up is a ''worldly endeavour'' then what is swimwear but the same.

 

[savagewind]

If getting dressed up is a ''worldly endeavour'' then what is swimwear but the same.

Why not ask God what leaven of Pharisees means?...... and take it to mind.

 

[Deidre]

Iguess, staying in the real world, that is because women tend to be the shop window, and men tend to be the customer. Now, can you take that in the spirit it was given?
Men usually are the instigators even though it might actually come from the woman and her dress and how she acts etc. So it is at least, thoughtful, for the woman (and man) to consider how they act, and that would include dress.

I'm not dismissing your points...but frankly? The world has a lot more important things to worry over, as in simply some parts of the world treating people as human beings, than it should be concerned with occasional cleavage or tight pants on a woman, being a 'near occasion for sin' for the average Joe. This kind of stuff when it comes to religion, bugs me. It's like fixing the doorknob on the front door of a house, whose very foundation is about to collapse. But, hey -- the doorknob is fixed.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not dismissing your points...but frankly? The world has a lot more important things to worry over, as in simply some parts of the world treating people as human beings, than it should be concerned with occasional cleavage or tight pants on a woman, being a 'near occasion for sin' for the average Joe. This kind of stuff when it comes to religion, bugs me. It's like fixing the doorknob on the front door of a house, whose very foundation is about to collapse. But, hey -- the doorknob is fixed.

haha... okay. I'm all for doorknobs! Thing is, it's not instead of, but as well as. Each will do their own thing. I was just giving an alternative, that's all.

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't class myself as religious either, though that is the broad title of it all. Nor do I class myself as Christian really, though again that encompasses most of their theology.

Religion be so complicated!

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I haven't got a lot to do with the Pope, as it happens.

Too bad. You could have set him straight on what's "real" and what isn't.

But your comment aligned adults with children

Please elaborate on how exactly.

who not responsible for their actions, whereas adults are.

The entire thread was asking whether adults (in this case, men) are responsible for their "feelings" or not. It's utterly irrelevant whether the provocation originates with another adult or a child, or if children are responsible for their own reactions.

It'd be like blaming the artist (child or adult) if you find their art insulting. It's strictly a problem of the viewer, not the artist.

But thanks for your allegedly relevant input all the same.

You seemed to be advocating a 'do what you want policy' in one sense, which makes no sense. I say that because you don't appear to care how adults dress.

If I find a provocatively dressed woman ... provocative ... it certainly isn't her fault. It's mine. I'm the captain of my own ship.

Look, I realize that personal accountability can seem like an entirely foreign concept to some (especially the theistically inclined). Try to imagine that there's no creator waiting in the wings to dictate your "morality" or absolve you after the fact for everything you do. Try to imagine that you bear the ultimate responsibility for your behavior and (re)actions.

And as for the Pope's comments (if they are indeed his) I skimmed them; they seem to be just as disgusted as the rest of us.

As well they should. The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It is up to you, as you know. I just gave the scripture, which is God's Word, if you are willing to accept it that is.

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." ~ Matthew 7:5

"Some people claim that there's a woman to blame. But I know ... it's my own damned fault." ~ Jimmy Buffet

You can't help but appreciate how even a dude like Jimmy Buffet can spot an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If I find a provocatively dressed woman ... provocative ... it certainly isn't her fault. It's mine. I'm the captain of my own ship.

We do not live in a bubble.

Look, I realize that personal accountability can seem like an entirely foreign concept to some (especially the theistically inclined). Try to imagine that there's no creator waiting in the wings to dictate your "morality" or absolve you after the fact for everything you do. Try to imagine that you bear the ultimate responsibility for your behavior and (re)actions.

.

Being accountable for ones own actions is important, not just how we react to someone but also how we might effect them. So it is important to see it from both sides.

I can recall many instances where someone has got in trouble with the law because they 'led' a certain person on. According to your thinking, it has nothing to do with them. Is that what you are saying? Because if so, I think you are not fixed in reality.

 

[Robert.Evans]

"You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." ~ Matthew 7:5

"Some people claim that there's a woman to blame. But I know ... it's my own damned fault." ~ Jimmy Buffet

You can't help but appreciate how even a dude like Jimmy Buffet can spot an unsubstantiated claim.

As I say, we don't live in a bubble. It is important to consider others and how their actions might be effected by our own. We all react and interact with one another... that is how the human race works. Seems silly to ignore it.

 

[psychoslice]

Unless your a weak and stupid man, then no, women should be not held accountable.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

We do not live in a bubble.

Being accountable for ones own actions is important, not just how we react to someone but also how we might effect them. So it is important to see it from both sides.

It'll please me to no end if, by the end of this discussion, you are able to distinguish between "feelings" (as the OP quite clearly indicated from the get-go) and "actions."

1.) We should all be held accountable for our own actions.
2.) To expect us to be held accountable for the feelings of others is ridiculous.

I can recall many instances where someone has got in trouble with the law because they 'led' a certain person on.

It takes two to tango. The person who has allowed themselves to be "led on" is still accountable for their own feelings and (if applicable) actions.

According to your thinking, it has nothing to do with them. Is that what you are saying? Because if so, I think you are not fixed in reality.

Again, it's ridiculous to hold Party A accountable for the feelings of Party B.

"And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." ~ Genesis 3:12

 

[Robert.Evans]

Unless your a weak and stupid man, then no, women should be not held accountable.

So if you are a weak and stupid man, then they can be held accountable can they?