How Women Ought to Dress

[Oceaxer]

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1001/20xr1.jpg

I remember when this Stile of Dress, shewn above, was in vogue,? betwixt the years 1780 & 1800, if I recall aright. One of my favourites. The late Mrs Radcliffe, as I remember her, was wont to dress in such manner. I wish it were still in fashion. Now all Women dress as Drabs.

http://hem.bredband.net/b110953/images/print26.jpg

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/costu ... _linda.jpg

http://hem.bredband.net/b110953/images/print4.jpg

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/do_his ... ip1700.jpg

http://www.costumes.org/history/18thcen ... e1800a.jpg

http://www.costumes.org/history/18thcen ... swoman.jpg

http://hem.bredband.net/b110953/images/print23.jpg

[Dan Rowden]

Two things:

thing the first: women should dress as they see fit;

thing the second: people should read the introduction threads at boards before posting. This is a text oriented board, Sir.

Genius Forum is intended as a text oriented format so we ask that images not be inserted into posts. If you want to express an idea visually please provide a link to that image that members can follow if they so choose. The ignoring of this request will result in the deletion of offending posts or threads.

Thank you for your expected co-operation in this matter. I'm going to edit the images back to links for you.

Dan Rowden

[Oceaxer]

Wrote Dan Rowden,

women should dress as they see fit;

Only if they choose to dress as befits a Lady; which affords ample Scope for the Exercise of Choice & the Expression of individual Peculiarities in Taste. Permitting everyone do as he "sees fit" is only productive of social Degeneracy.

[Dan Rowden]

Oh, and you get to determine what befits a Lady? Your tastes are yours to hold, I suppose, but women will decide to not be ladies by your standard - should they so desire.

[Oceaxer]

Wrote Dan Rowden,

Oh, and you get to determine what befits a Lady?

That the Verity of a Statement, unless that Statement be strictly autobiographick, depends on the person through whom it was voiced, is preposterous. At all events, it is you who have presumed to decide the proper Scope of Woman's Liberties; namely, to dress as she sees fit.

women will decide to not be ladies by your standard

And some of them will decide to murder, steal, and blasmpheme. That People will do something does not mean they ought to do so.

should they so desire.

Ah, the Cult of Choice. Yours is the Ethick of the Consumer; the Ethos of the Wallmart Shopper. It does not conduce to the Preservation of Conditions favourable to the Growth of Beauty.

[Dan Rowden]

What's your ethic? The ethic of the misogynist? The aesthetic tyrant? My ethic has nothing to do with consumerism - which is mindless and foolish. I certainly don't believe in forcing my aesthetic preferences on people.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What's your ethic?

I remember when this Stile of Dress, shewn above, was in vogue,? betwixt the years 1780 & 1800, if I recall aright.

Dan, you are not talking to a real person but to an internet persona.

Person behind the Oceaxer persona, it seems to me that you may have missed a point. This message board is about exploring Truth and Reality. These are real people working on real beliefs. If you are trying to poetically make a point, the point is murky, not clear. Would you please clarify what your real intended communication is?

[Oceaxer]

I am communicting to you my genuine Thoughts and Feelings through a material and tangible Body of Flesh and Blood. I am in no wise an unreal person. Tho' I confess I shou'd have expected the extraordinary Situation of my Birth to have challenged the Credulity of some Members. I shall therefore have nothing farther to say touching on my past Life and Experiences. Do but forgive me, however, if I shou'd now & then fall back into my ancient Habits of speaking, writing, and conversing.

I us'd to post at GENIUS FORUMS a few years or so ago, by the bye. Several of my Postings were expurgated on insufficient Cause, precipitating my Migration to on-line Communities, that permitted absolute Liberty of Expression. GENIUS FORUM was in those Days an Ezboard, & its Dysgenick Posting Policy, (whereby any Person who shew'd a Whit of creative Intelligence was deny'd the opportunity of exerci?ing it,) seems to have been disconinue'd, following its conversion to PhpBB. Wherefore I have now register'd a new Account, in stead of resurrecting my old one; which probably no longer exists.

Would you please clarify what your real intended communication is?

I have made my Point, I think, with perfect Clarity. In any case, I am going to elaborate at great length in my forthcoming rebuttal to Dan Rowden.

[Alex Jacob]

You know, it is not a completely vain question, even though it is couched in irony. It is somewhat obvious that Muremaker, as a persona, is looking at modernity from his peculiar Angle of View, and this is quirkish, but it does seem to me that a great part of our own Angle of View is pretty damned arbitrary, and if I may be so bold it is not so outrageous to ask a question, or to express an opinion, about the way women dress, or about any particular convention. True, it is sort of a useless conversation if it presumes to actually decide the issue, or supposes it possible to change anything about modern conventions given the force behind them, but the question of what people do, the question of the supremacy of 'personal choice', is really not a bad one.

Many capricious personal choices are obviously destructive and will likely need to be curtailed.

For various reasons I have begun a little research project into the seminal texts of 'second-wave feminism' (Brownmiller, Freidan, Greer, Millet, Dworkin, Morgan, de Beauvoir, etc.) and within this battlefield of ideas and assertions based on doctrines of 'freedom' I find tremendous tendentiousness, even spuriousness, and it seems to me that the whole issue of the status of woman vis-a-vis man is in no way an issue that is to be decided by women alone. Even to presume that seems absurd to me. And anyway, it could be argued that few of us actually make 'true' personal choices; we rather submit to fashions and trends (I have to resist writing 'Fashions & Trends' and this has got me worried...) that become established in a social imitative context.

[Oceaxer]

Wrote Dan Rowden,

What's your ethic?

I have been most influenced by the Work of the late Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

The ethic of the misogynist?

Modesty, I think, improves Woman's Self-image. It encourages Man to view Woman as a Personality, rather than an Object existing merely for the Gratification of his animal Passions.

My ethic has nothing to do with consumerism

I am not entirely sure what your Ethick is, but the Cult of Choice, whereof you appear to be an Advocate, is the Product and Manifestation of consumer Culture. It is the Ethos of the Wallmart shopper, choosing his Basket of Goods, according to his Preferences.

[maestro]

I shou'd have expected the extraordinary Situation of my Birth to have challenged the Credulity of some Members. I shall therefore have nothing farther to say touching on my past Life and Experiences. Do but forgive me, however, if I shou'd now & then fall back into my ancient Habits of speaking, writing, and conversing.

When were you born Oceaxer. Have you seen any interesting historical events in your lifetime, please share.

[skipair]

Personally, I prefer this, but to each his own:

http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/userim ... 145546.jpg

Some say I shouldn't encourage looking on women as sex objects, and instead to help promote wisdom in them...call me a bastard, cause I suppose I am, but they seem pretty happy already to me.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

What the fuck is with all the anachronisms? Talk normal.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Between Muremaker and Monster Cock, I have to say that Genius has been attracting some hilarious trolls recently. By the way, I've got a bridge to sell anyone who takes Muremaker seriously. PM me for the offer.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I'm not even bothering to read it, let alone take it seriously.

[ChaCha]

Alex Jacob : "and it seems to me that the whole issue of the status of woman vis-a-vis man is in no way an issue that is to be decided by women alone. Even to presume that seems absurd to me."

I think this is how men ought to dress

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tan_01.jpg

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Is "Hubba Hubba" still seeing colloquial use?

[daybrown]

Be that as it may, with the increasing power of women, it dont matter what those who dont like the way they dress think.

Every so many years, I get a subscription to Playboy to get a handle on where the culture is. This year, I added Hustler. Which has more intellectual content as well as more pussy. However, in both cases, I see it is standard now for it to be totally shaved. Smacks of pedophilia, but if men can shave faces, then why cant women shave cunts? does anyone think that men who shave faces are trying to look like boys?

There is also however, a trend with more variety in bust sizes, going smaller, and looking more pubescent with the ponderous tits nearly gone from the photos. Its pretty obvious as well that high fashion models are the closest thing to a boy as the fags who design the clothes can find. Its not my thing, but its not upta me, so I dont get my panties in a wad about it.

We've seen this before. In India, the prime diety is Kali. female. who wears a curious belt with small skulls that dangle, not symbolic of beheading, but of Her power to turn men's heads. A very similar belt is worn by Belly dancers over their skirts, a lace lattice with perforated coins that rattle as she swings hips. It is called a "Kucha belt". And if you saw a woman wearing only it, it'd look a lot like the bimbos in Hustler wearing garter belts. And this tradition can be traced all the way from Kucha in what is now NW China back to Chalcolithic SE Europe 7000 years ago. There are female figures wearing only the belt, with the pubic clit clearly depicted, but also the peculiar scalloped tops of stockings as seen with the bimbos in Hustler from the way the garter straps pull on them.

Then too, we have the Minoan women with dresses constructed to make the *bare* tits stick out as far as possible. http://www.dc-pc.org/artifax/artifax.html (the 9th jpg down, give it a minute) which shows 19 barebreasted bimbos in miniskirts lined up on the dock to welcome the sailors.

The early 20th century Danes were scandalized at the discovery of the "Egtved woman" buried in what we'd call a miniskirt. with a bare midriff blouse. The skirt was kinda kinky, with parellel cords attatched at the waist and hem so that skin on a butt cheek would poke thru.

The way women "ought to dress" comes out of Levantine scripture. If you dont follow a Levantine religion, I dont see the moral imperative in it.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

daybrown,

The way women "ought to dress" comes out of Levantine scripture. If you dont follow a Levantine religion, I dont see the moral imperative in it.

What a weird thing to say.

Not all fashion Nazis are followers of ancient religions from one specific region of the world. Anyone (even secular school teachers) can believe that clothing choice has moral significance, and will thus make it their obligation to impel others to behave by arbitrary fashion laws. Here in Canada, you'd think that the only reason we wear clothing is because it can get pretty cold in the winter, but try going out in public with nary a loin cloth and the likelihood of arrest (including imprisonment in one of our many behaviour-modifying "mental hospitals") increases exponentially.

One sign of a corrupt government is arbitrary imprisonment.

[daybrown]

<One sign of a corrupt government is arbitrary imprisonment.>
The Scythians were notorious for going naked. Altho, I expect that was only in summer.
In regions were there are blood sucking ticks, and you dont have insect repellent all the time, being naked makes it a lot easier to feel them crawl on your skin and get them off before they introduce disease.

The Levantine scriptures are so embedded in the legal system that it is hard, as Nietzsche noted, to see the impact on the culture of Christian moral values that are, as you say, arbitrary.

I dont mind if a school has a dress code. You dont havta go to that school, or work in a place with a dress code that you think is arbitrary. Conversely, I've been to Beltane festivals where only the outside observers were not naked. The diff being that the nudists dont try to impose their dress code on anyone else. If you just wanna wear Nazi tattoos, they'll think you are nuts, but wont press charges.

But be that as it may, it hardly matters what we here think. Women have been in power before, and they have tended to dress in ways Christians think outrageous. The Egtved girl for instance. But if you read Gibbon, you find out that the people who lived in Denmark in this era were the Sittones, and he points out, they were "ruled by women". They also left, he said, and moved enmasse to what we now call Sweden. Which is a clue to why the Swedish culture is like it is.

The world is increasingly under the control of transnationals; and as I say in another post, personnel managers are increasingly hiring women, who are also moving up the corporate ladder. Sure, men will still dominate in engineering where math skills matter, but women will be deciding what needs to be engineered.

There's a new business model evolving on the net as geeks email each other working on a design. but when they have that worked out, they hire women to run the office, inventory, shipping, and contract allocation. The upshot is a very profitable business that is much more able to plow more profits back into R&D because the organization does not have the high cost of alpha male management.

Maybe there's a *reason* the genuine, almighty Silver Dollar has a *Goddess* engraved on it?