Public displays of affection?

[Scanty]

Perhaps it's not a socially constructed ideal. Maybe it's actually an objective need of people to have boundaries between themselves and other people. If two people start humping in the middle of the street, they're telling anyone who comes along that they have no boundaries. "Want to cop a feel? Want to watch us and wank? Want to join in? Hey, the more the merrier!" That's the message that's being sent.

That's a generalisation. It would depend what kind of person is looking at them, where, when etc... It depends on how people perceive what they're doing. And it certainly wouldn't tell me that they had no boundaries. NO boundaries at all?? If I saw a couple kissing without inhibition I wouldn't assume that they'd be fine with making babies right there, as well.

By saying 'objective need' do you mean an innate need? Because I can't figure out how something like wanting boundaries between people would be objective.
You only have to look at how early man were probably humping left right and centre, all about the caves and fields or whatever, without care of who was watching and without reservations. With that in mind, where else could the restrain we show now come from if it wasn't a construction by society over time? If there is another explanation I am genuinely interested.

Humping in the street is a long ways from checking each other's tonsils, but the principle is the same: How much do you want to invite complete strangers into your personal life?
What I believe Gato is saying is that a person who has no]/i] boundaries is considered a slut, i.e., someone who will do anything with anybody, anytime. As a gentleman, he would not expose his date to speculation on whether she is a slut by doing things that make it look like she has no boundaries, no personal dignity.

Yes I understood it like that too. But WHY would he not expose his date to that kind of speculation? Of being a slut or being easy or whatever... The main reason for his restraint would seem to be that he did not want his date to be looked upon in a derogatory manner. Why not? Because this would be harmful to her in some way?
Yes it would, if she cared about that kind of judgement from other people.
If she didn't, then it doesn't matter. People's disapproving remarks fall on unaffected ears.

And then where does this harm lie?...if it's not being received by anyone it's directed at.
The only place the thoughts of 'slut' and 'whore' exist would be in the minds of the people watching who were thinking those things. But thoughts are only harmful when they manifest themselves into actions...a remark or a evil glance. So then again, it comes back to...if those actions do not affect the couple at all, and if they do not care the slightest little bit... the point of worrying about it is lost.

 

[Ardsgaine]

That's a generalisation.

How people would actually react would vary according to their own character, but I believe the message that there is an implied invitation is there regardless of who sees them. Most people would just decline the invitation.

And it certainly wouldn't tell me that they had no boundaries. NO boundaries at all?? If I saw a couple kissing without inhibition I wouldn't assume that they'd be fine with making babies right there, as well.

Kissing without inhibition is different. Humping in the street pretty much means NO boundaries.

By saying 'objective need' do you mean an innate need? Because I can't figure out how something like wanting boundaries between people would be objective.
You only have to look at how early man were probably humping left right and centre, all about the caves and fields or whatever, without care of who was watching and without reservations. With that in mind, where else could the restrain we show now come from if it wasn't a construction by society over time? If there is another explanation I am genuinely interested.

Just because humans had to discover the need, and develop ways to fulfill it over a period of time doesn't mean that it's not an objective need. That's why I said at the outset that I dislike the term "socially-constructed". It makes it sound like the conventions of society are completely arbitrary rather than being things we've put in place to serve genuine needs. Living in a house, as opposed to the open air, is a "socially constructed ideal."

But thoughts are only harmful when they manifest themselves into actions...a remark or a evil glance.

Right. So a gentleman doesn't want people to think ill of his date, because he doesn't want her to be slighted or treated like a slut. He sets the example for how he expects her to be treated by others.

 

[Scanty]

I disagree with your first statement.

Just because humans had to discover the need, and develop ways to fulfill it over a period of time doesn't mean that it's not an objective need. That's why I said at the outset that I dislike the term "socially-constructed". It makes it sound like the conventions of society are completely arbitrary rather than being things we've put in place to serve genuine needs. Living in a house, as opposed to the open air, is a "socially constructed ideal."

I didn't say that they weren't there to serve geniune needs. They are there to serve geniune needs - but it's the actual needs that you have to look at. Living in a house, for example, is directly linked with how well we survive. The 'need' that fuels our habit of living houses is better survival, health etc. But what's the 'need' that fuels us not showing as much affection in public as we might in private?? There are reasons...like the ones Gato has mentioned...but they are not on the same level. They are preferences that we have come up with. And what I'm saying is that if there is no discomfort felt by either person, then the 'need' doesn't exist because the preference doesn't exist.
There isn't actually anything wrong with it.

Right. So a gentleman doesn't want people to think ill of his date, because he doesn't want her to be slighted or treated like a slut. He sets the example for how he expects her to be treated by others.

Okay then, a question:

WHY doesn't he want her to be treated like a slut?


(I know it seems like a dumb question but just go with it, because i'm running out of ways to explain this.)

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

i'm very openly affectionate, i hug basically anyone who'll let me.
with my close friends, i'll hug them and not let go for a while. but with my close guy-friends (a lot of my friends are guys), people who see, get the wrong idea. true, with one i'm especially fond of (and plan on asking out...), i'd sort of nuzzle him and we'd sway, and people would shout "GET A ROOM!!".....
which doesnt make sense. that's something that should be shouted at people who are practically having sex in the hallways, not to two friends hugging.


oh, my friends and i found a used condom in the schoolyard yesterday, btw. it was beautiful

 

[Jeslek]

i'm very openly affectionate, i hug basically anyone who'll let me.

YOU ma'am, you and I will get along just fine. Ditto for me, and I'm a guy.

with my close friends, i'll hug them and not let go for a while. but with my close guy-friends (a lot of my friends are guys), people who see, get the wrong idea.

Unfortunately yes. But I don't give a flying fuck. I hug all my friends that will let me, and screw those that think its gayish (for guys) or sexual (for girls). I pity them.

true, with one i'm especially fond of (and plan on asking out...), i'd sort of nuzzle him and we'd sway, and people would shout "GET A ROOM!!".....
which doesnt make sense. that's something that should be shouted at people who are practically having sex in the hallways, not to two friends hugging.

Yes, whether you're hugging a guy or a girl, it isn't sexual, its to show affection.