Wapsi Square Forum

Alum has a more lasting effect than sucking on a lemon.

Nadette will BSOD, and Berdine will have the giggles again.

--FreeFlier

That dress must be something else...

I suspect that the dress is something between a belly-dancer's outfit and a form-fitting dress...

Linda Carter, as Wonder Woman, comes to mind... (re: Not popping out of your clothing...)

PS- In another thread, I mentioned that Atsali's Clothes don't slip loose or otherwise fall away because They Want To Be There...

Say it again for the folks in the back:

The amount of skin you show has nothing to do with sexuality or self respect.

I'm amused by her cantilevered posture. Keeping her center of mass, even with her extra balist. And that's why she has those wonderful back muscles.

jeffepp wrote:I'm amused by her cantilevered posture. Keeping her center of mass, even with her extra balist. And that's why she has those wonderful back muscles.

She has wings, you know.

GlytchMeister wrote:Say it again for the folks in the back:

The amount of skin you show has nothing to do with sexuality or self respect.

And in the same breath, she says that it will knock her girlfriend's socks off.

So, since sexuality is not involved here, I'm assume her socks are going to be knocked off in a cold, intellectual manner.

GlytchMeister wrote:Say it again for the folks in the back:

The amount of skin you show has nothing to do with sexuality or self respect.

And to follow up with where (I think) we we should go next, in our Cultural and Human Relations Evolution; Being a Sexual Being Doesn't Mean It's Shameful or Evil.

T'or. You keep punch'n baby...

Thor wrote:

GlytchMeister wrote:Say it again for the folks in the back:

The amount of skin you show has nothing to do with sexuality or self respect.

And in the same breath, she says that it will knock her girlfriend's socks off.

So, since sexuality is not involved here, I'm assume her socks are going to be knocked off in a cold, intellectual manner.

We don't always agree, but yeah this. Showing skin is definitely related to sexuality, it just isn't a bad thing.

TazManiac wrote:

GlytchMeister wrote:Say it again for the folks in the back:

The amount of skin you show has nothing to do with sexuality or self respect.

And to follow up with where (I think) we we should go next, in our Cultural and Human Relations Evolution; Being a Sexual Being Doesn't Mean It's Shameful or Evil.

One of my absolute favourite alt.country artists said:

Butch Hancock wrote:Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth, and you should save it for someone you love.

Akeche wrote:

Thor wrote:

GlytchMeister wrote:Say it again for the folks in the back:

The amount of skin you show has nothing to do with sexuality or self respect.

And in the same breath, she says that it will knock her girlfriend's socks off.

So, since sexuality is not involved here, I'm assume her socks are going to be knocked off in a cold, intellectual manner.

We don't always agree, but yeah this. Showing skin is definitely related to sexuality, it just isn't a bad thing.

Yes, and no. Showing skin in America is culturally associated with sexuality . . . except in those situations where it isn't, like going to the doctor, taking a bath, nudist camps, artistic expression, and of course protesting the way the culture tends to associate total or partial nudity with sexuality (which is the whole point of the "Free The Nipple" movement). There are plenty of counterexamples from other cultures that show us that associating sexuality with nudity isn't an inevitable or universal conclusion.

My snark above is not "Nudity is sexual! Duh! " but rather that Jin's statement is the Very Model of a Modern Mixed Message. In one sentence she implies that Nadette will be all moist in the loins when she sees the dress, and in the next sentence she asserts that there is nothing about the way she will be dressed that is sexual in any manner.

Of course, she might be implying merely that Nadette will be impressed by the aesthetics of Atsali in the dress, but that would that Jin knows absolutely nothing about Nadette, who is all but humping Atsali's leg half the time.

Pablo is still working on distilling his message, I suppose.

It could be that Jin is having trouble with mixing her messages . . . While she is Lanthian, she was also mentally ill . . .

Wolf-who-watches wrote:One does not understand the two-legs obsession with skin.

A good healthy coat is much more attractive.

But well said, nevertheless.

--FreeFlier

Oh good. I'm not the only one confused by Jin's statement.

I think the message I'm meant to come away with is maaaaaybe that while Atsali might want to/enjoy evoking a sexual response from her partner, the fact she is wearing the dress she is is not meant to be a sexual statement. It's not an invitation for random people to start hitting on her just because of the amount of skin shes' showing...

Jin (Pablo) is trying to say that the amount of exposed skin is not a broadcast message, just a clear channel message to a specific person.

Opus the Poet wrote:Jin (Pablo) is trying to say that the amount of exposed skin is not a broadcast message, just a clear channel message to a specific person.

Thats how i understood it as well.

It's not what you wear, it's how you wear it.

If you show skin, that's not necessarily sexual, and should not be taken as such. Behavior, verbal and nonverbal cues, body language and facial expressions... CONTEXT is what generates sexuality in a situation if someone is fully-clothed in Arctic survival gear or if they are buck-ass nude.

Clothing or lack thereof can enhance this, but only in the presence of additional context. It's not consent, it's not a statement of intent, it's not a sign of lack of self-esteem, respect, or value.

So Atsali can walk around in this dress and, in a perfect world, she would not be seen as a sexual object and her choice of clothing would not be interpreted as a sexual message of any kind... UNTIL she decides to intentionally turn up the heat for Nadette.

Granted, Atsali seems too oblivious to be able to consciously send that sort of message, but the point still stands.

GlytchMeister wrote:So Atsali can walk around in this dress and, in a perfect world, she would not be seen as a sexual object and her choice of clothing would not be interpreted as a sexual message of any kind... UNTIL she decides to intentionally turn up the heat for Nadette.

Granted, Atsali seems too oblivious to be able to consciously send that sort of message, but the point still stands.

At some point instinct(s) is gonna kick in.