POLL: Are thongs sexy?

Remove all ads!

@dmc: I just don't believe in showing part of your ass to get a tip is. But perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned. I tend to separate things carnal from things pecuniary

Of course, I don't claim she had exactly that intention. She might have only linked attractivity with tips and and thought of her way of appearing attractive.

Ultimately, it might have all been about attracting looks only. I don't know. I don't care. Underwear is underwear. Let them walk around in swimsuits, fine. But I don't want to see panties sticking out of trousers. It's frowsy. It almost makes me throw up. Or at least think about it. Yea, really. The same way as the red brick combined with milky-greenish opaque glass in the Law Department of my university does

 

YES!..only if the person wearing them is sexy though..

 

There's nothing sexy about a thong if it's not worn.
And people not wearing thongs could still be sexy.
Wow, that was wise...

 

Thongs are not sexy. Nudity is sexy. And thongs maximize nudity.

Although, in the Shralp opinion, if you're wearing a thong someplace where more than just your husband can see you, then you're a big ol' ho-bag slut. I'm looking at you, Damona.

 

I think thongs are sexy, yes, they do encourage nudity, among other things... but if women wear them for comfort, self-esteem boost, or just to be noticed, its their choice, and we have no real place to judge whether they are slutty or not. Yes, you can tell which ones are trying to be or not, but it reallly doesn't matter.

 

What if they wear transparent clothing instead? Or revealing? Or sticky? Or if they behave in the fashion they look? Still the same applies? No? That's different? So we're having relative borders. Hah! Where are the borders, I'm asking?

Nudity is quite confusing here. Nudity is about not being covered, not about revealing. Just why is porn popular? Because the photos are nude? No, because the models look as though they had been dreaming about nothing other than finally jumping out of those knickers for days. The same rule, but in a lesser degree, applies to sticking out underwear and to readily visible thongs.

And quite right - I'm not really the one to judge. But I don't want to see frowsily dressed people in public places. Your underwear belongs due under your clothing.

 

I dont care one whit if it is "slutty" or not, it doesnt matter either way. I think it looks tacky and that is very different from slutty. Nor does it matter if someone want to dress "slutty", heck I dont even know what slutty is. To each his own, but for me a thong is unattractive on a woman.

 

Question: Are thongs sexy?

... Maybe a better question is...

Do bears s hit in the woods?!

 

Look, here is a rule that is absolutely true that all men need to be made aware of. Sometimes, a woman will act, dress, or talk in a certain way to make them look to everyone else as someone they are not.

Going back a few years to my college days, I knew quite a few women who wore thongs, and even exposed part of those thongs when they went to bars, clubs, etc. I do not consider any of those women slutty or frowsy. I knew them personally, and they weren't going to pick up any guy that gave them a look and take them home and sleep with them. Their purpose of wearing them was to get guys to look, get free drinks out of the deal, and boost their self esteem. Hell, my wife told me that when she was in college before we met, she and her girlfriends would deliberately dress a little slutty (they refered to it as getting "tarted up") and see how many different guys would offer to buy them a drink when they went out. None of them were, or ever became prostitutes. All of them are currently happily married, and with the exception of my wife, all of them have children. None of them turned out to be sex-fiends or otherwise showed poor social development.

The point I'm making is just because some women DRESS that way, it doesn't necessarily mean they ACT that way. Now, far it be from me to tell other males on this board what they should or should not find sexy. It's obviously a personal opinion, and it's probably not even a conscious choice. For example, chev doesn't deliberately become ill when he sees a women with her thong exposed - it's just his natural reaction. However, I think it is improper to say women who expose their thongs are all slutty/frowsy, when clearly that is not the case.

 

Ah, dear Fopster, but some -- including your friendly neighborhood Shralp -- would say that dressing is an act. I overstated for fun earlier (obviously wearing a low-cut dress isn't the same as doing the horizontal mambo with the first guy who comes along).

But these things point to the same thing. (Thing One and Thing Two!) I see a woman wearing revealing clothing and I think to myself, "There's a woman who's confused about who she is and what will make her happy." Because at heart each and every woman would rather be worshipped as a princess than pursued as a whore.

[Edited to add:] Except for Joachim. He loves being a ho.

 

Thongs? I used to wear those all the time. But I hardly think of them as "sexy" footwear. It's got to be pretty uncomfortable to pull them all the way up to your butt!

 

I'd personally have to say that thongs are definitely not sexy. Reason:

Firstly, they leave far too little to the imagination. It's like this...I think that a woman looks infinitely more sexy wearing a shirt...only a shirt!

Secondly, it has to be understood that a woman looks sexiest and appeals to the carnal side of us most when it seems natural and unplanned. Thus, the best underwear for a woman is white, cotton (fully covering) panties...with the tiny little bow!

 

1. A. "Their purpose of wearing them was to get guys to look, get free drinks out of the deal, and boost their self esteem."

B. So, their self-esteem rose from appearing as sluts.

C. They were also exposing their bodies, adopting the likeness of a slut and generally wittingly appealing to the carnal side to get some drinks without paying for them. I guess that was a huge boost to their self-esteem?

D. Look? As I say, I like looking at women. Looking, contemplating, taking aesthetic pleasure. Dressed? Fine. Naked? Fine. Unkemptly, negligently dressed? Fine. But let's not be frowsy. That's not a moral thing, that's an aesthetic thing. Looking at someone's ass escaping his trousers and the someone's underwear sticking out does not have any inherent appeal, so far as I am concerned.

2.

See 1D. Making a slut of yourself, even superficially, to achieve material gain is enough proof of poor social development.

3.

Dressing is also an act. From what you say, it was (and usually is, anyway) accompanied by similarly provactive behaviour. That doesn't make it 100% sure that they will go further. But if not, so whom do they copy?

4.

I don't either. I consider their looks slutty and frowsy at the given moment. Continuous display of such a fashion lends them these two adjectives for indefinite period.

5.

Pardon, but it's not so clear for me as it is for you. It would be improper in most cases to make such comments about specific persons in public situations (at least not with words like frowsy or slutty), but surely not in general discussion.

 

Good lord chev relax a little man.You cannot judge a book by its cover as they say.

What makes you think you have the right to play moral supperior to someone over the way they dress.If it bothers you dont go out with these women, but to think you have some kind of moral edge over them is worse to me than if they did sleep with every man they saw.

 

Please, I wasn't even using moral arguments, in case you haven't noticed. Aesthetical in the 'frowsy' part and describing facts in 'slutty' part. There's no judgement of persons there. See point 4. "I don't either. I consider their looks slutty and frowsy at the given moment." So?

Secondly, acts are not cover. As I pointed out, I refer to acts. As for judging, see point 4. For 'don't go out with those women', I could as well say 'you go out with them and leave the topic alone, if it bothers you'. We're having a discussion here, so such arguments don't apply, sorry. The argument of my supposed moral edge doesn't apply either, as it doesn't belong in the topic. It's a standard argument in personam used whenever someone criticises anything on moral grounds. Please try to reply to arguments in this topic and found a general judgment of chevalier topic, if it concerns you so much.

If you had read my post, which is exactly one post above yours, and read it in full, you would have noticed that I specifically stressed the difference between copying sluts and being one. See point 3. If 'That doesn't make it 100% sure that they will go further' doesn't convince you, I don't know what can.

Ultimately, basing on almost whole your post:

"What makes you think you have the right to play moral supperior to someone over the way they dress.If it bothers you dont go out with these women, but to think you have some kind of moral edge over them is worse to me than if they did sleep with every man they saw."

Using your own arguments and the logic behind them (that's hardly my own opinion, I am just illustrating your logic here) What makes you think that you have the right to play morally superior to me, for a change? If it bothers you, ignore my opinion. To think you have some kind of moral edge over me is worse to me than writing like in my previous post.

Please, don't feel attacked. Just pay more attention to given material before criticising and before framing emotional statements, OK? Try to remember it's a discussion where everyone is supposed to present his points, defend them, argue with the others' points and seek some conclusion. It's not about fighting the other people, who might as well be your friends, but just differing in opinion.

 

I have to admit I've worn one before and they feel quite um...nice

It must be the rubbing sensation (this calls for an MSN style embarassed face!)

 

Chev Chev Chev
1. you are not describing facts when you call a women a slut for the way they dress.

2.You are passing moral judgement when you call a women a slut for the way they dress.

3.You do this over and over again in this thread alone.

 

Shh... you didn't read my post in full, again. Do I have to type in caps that I don't call them sluts, or is bold enough?

I say they dress in a slutty way. And a frowsy one. Frowsy, because underwear sticking out is frowsy (purely aesthetical matter) and slutty as made after sluts. Is this clear enough? I'm having an impression that you're discussing more with yourself than with me and what I say is not actually relevant.

Let's say: if sluts dress provocatively and revealingly in a special way, and someone does the same, isn't the someone doing what sluts do? So what am I doing? Theorising on the meaning of life?

Don't let us be superficial. Some imagination, please. Understand it's not about the dress itself (you probably missed the 'Naked? Fine.' bit, too), but in the thinking behind it. Values represented, or just copied. Purpose of dressing in that and none other way. Goals to achieve. That's what I pointed out. What I pointed out, I derived logically from posts above - and ones speaking in favour of such a manner of dressing.

Of course, you can still adopt a totally non-judgemental point of view and maintain that just because a woman sleeps (if she does) with whomever she sees, she's not a slut. Otherwise, you at some point judge her behaviour. Or herself directly. I suppose this is clear.

The closest, in potential common reception, to calling someone a slut was my statement:

Which was directly (by virtue of quotation) referred to Aldeth's:

and

So, I concluded that they exposed private parts of their bodies and they also exposed parts of their underwear in order to drink without paying for what they drink.

I also concluded that they exposed private parts of their bodies and parts of their underwear to boost their self-esteem. Consequently, exposing their bodies and exposing their underwear increased their self-esteem. Ergo, in plain English: they felt better exposing their asses and their panties in public. Where is the judgement? Isn't that just a plain description of what they were doing? Or just a logical implication?

It's rephrasing what had been said before my post by people who did not consider such behaviour slutty. I consider such behaviour akin to prostitution, a lower form of it. While prostitution is offering sexual intercourse for pay, that was acting on sexuality to achieve material gain. The excuse of acting on sexuality being subject to interpretation does not work since it was the women's aim to 'appeal to carnal side'. That doesn't mean enhancing appearance (were for example make-up or figure-retouching clothing belongs), but awakening sexual desires and giving elusive hopes of their fulfilment, in a manner of unsaid and partly alleged promise. "Hey, that was not for real! I'm not going to sleep with you! What do you think I am, a slut? I didn't really mean that, you know? You dolt!" etc etc.

Edit: Before anyone wastes time on counterrant in defence of women wearing thongs: I don't touch women wearing thongs under their trousers or skirts. Sure, I still consider thongs unaesthetic and un-sexy, but it's not my problem what someone has in his trousers.

Edit2: Please don't try to see a moral judgement where it's not given. We're talking about sexy or not, which is for me closely related to aesthetic or not. Any morality is incidental here. In fact, even prostitution is only material for comparison here.

Edit3: Under no circumstances reply to this post without having read it in full. Please. Before you ask, criticise or attack, please read the previous posts. Please.

@Dorion: What about my other points? Because you're silent about them, do you accept them without question or ignore them totally? I wouldn't like to judge by cover, you know

Well, I would encourage contribution from other people. Perhaps someone would like to argue?

[ November 22, 2003, 15:51: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Chev ssshhhh
Herre are some of your better quotes

"they want to reaveal and a look but play the rape game when you do"

"arnet they copied from prostitutes"

"ITS considered fashionable to look like a slut now"

"lets please not copy harlots"


And as for you other points I could care lees how people dres in public.They are free to do as the y choose.

[ November 22, 2003, 16:07: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

 

You totally miss my point. It's not about how people dress in public.

Please show me how my quotes are relevant to our discussion so far. I suppose you're trying to show some contradiction in a subtle way, but I'm afraid I don't catch it. Perhaps a little more directly?

Well, have you really read what I wrote? You seem so bent on proving me wrong that you miss what I write. That's a tactical error. There's no better way to prove me wrong then to seek out inconsistencies or falseties and point them out.

Judging me all over the topic, as you do, is not a way of proving me wrong. It's a way of proving yourself wrong if you maintain that judging is wrong on my part.

A personal request: Please copy my words from my posts and paste them into your posts rather than quote me from memory. They're fairly butchered and although I recognise them, I couldn't tell my point from some of them, even being their author.

I'm afraid I'll have to cut discussion with you as you seem to pay no attention to my arguments and substitute them with figures useful in your own argumentation, as well as you attack me personally rather than argue with my points. This way, you're going off-topic and I would only wind that up if I maintained this dialogue. If you stick to arguments and stay in topic. You don't have to be especially logical, it'll be enough if you actually refer to what I actually wrote and maintain some basic consistence (ie what is wrong for me, is wrong for you, unless you have some rights that I'm not aware of).

Holy logic, will I have to quote myself all over this topic? Read, please. Read. Do I have to do that for you? As for now, I could myself provide you with better, more consistent and in-topic arguments against my own, but what's the point?