Okay, fair point, you make your own decision to conform with the Navy's rules in order to participate in it as a whole. Doesn't seem like a problem, we all choose compromises in life which is kind of the best we can do.
But I take it that you still want to point out that clothing laws are based on illogical concepts such as shame. I guess I don't see any particular reason to disagree with that.
Yep, you're right, I have a hard time understanding the meanings you're trying to convey in your posts, at least I've sure been having a hard time doing that lately. I'm trying.
So, sometimes clothing is appropriate, sometimes not, and as long as illogical concepts such as shame aren't trying to determine which is which, then there isn't a problem. I guess correct me if I'm wrong?
Sorry if I didn't get your meaning in your statement about women wearing little clothing. You accuse me of not reading everything you wrote. I did read it all, I just didn't interpret it the way you intended, so again I apologize.
So what you said was:
"Now when I look at females who wear very little clothing, I stop, I look at them, I appreciate their beauty, I smile, and I think to myself, 'Good for them, they can feel the breeze.' Then I go on with my life."
So I take it my error was in suggesting you didn't look at or appreciate the beauty of such women, while being glad for their apparent spirit of inner freedom that's expressed in that way. I guess I just focused on your last sentence about then going on with your life. So what I was saying is that I understood that you didn't make a big deal about it. Guess that's not quite how I worded myself the first time, but I think that's what I meant. I certainly didn't mean to deny you credit for the positive perception you did have of such women.
Look, maybe I'm just not being thorough enough in stating my thoughts or understandings. I did feel like my post was getting a little long as it was, but I take it I ommitted something important and I'll just have to ask your pardon for that.
Yes, it's true that wild animals will forcefully defend themselves from unwanted sexual advances when they feel they need to. So, maybe that was the only point you were trying to make? I guess I just don't get how we can apply it as humans.
I guess it seems like I'm trying to inject some kind of abstract meaning into your literal words, but honestly that's not quite what's happening. Maybe I'm *seeing*
abstract meanings that aren't there; that's certainly possible. But I'm not trying to inject anything of my own design into your message. Your message is your own. My honest intent is to understand that message. So, if I seem to be trying to inject something into it, maybe that's because I'm miscommunicating my intent.
I'm not necessarily denying having made some sweeping generalizations about humans (and other topics), but I am aware of the principle of individual exceptions to the "statistical patterns." And is my knowledge great? No, I don't think so. Do I know everything about everything? I'm sure I don't. Sorry, I guess that means I will make mistakes sometimes in my statements and observations. Aren't we all guilty of that imperfection? So, we are neither teachers nor students to each other, we are just imperfect people who are trying to share our imperfect ideas on this thread.
What else can I possibly say to help keep the peace here? I am really floundering wondering what I'm supposed to do. I seem to have caused a whole lot of problems when I was actually hoping to contribute.
So, how can we get along a little better? I'm open to suggestions (insofar as I am able to understand them correctly).