| − | sexuality, instead of promoting healthy body toleration.50<br />36. Entire nudity is antithetic to the elaborate semi-porn of the fashion industry.<br />fighting but at precisely the same time re-kindling this desire--a self-perpetuating process is inevitably set in motion. In<br />fact modesty can never really achieve its ultimate end except through its disappearance. Concealing under the cloak of<br />modesty there are to be found many vital elements of the sexual urge itself." 51<br />37. 52<br />At various times in Western history distinct parts of female human body have been eroticized: bellies and<br />thighs in the Renaissance; buttocks, breasts, and thighs by the late 1800s (and comparatively diminutive waistlines and<br />bellies). Underwear layout has historically stressed these erogenous body parts: corsets in the 1800s deemphasized<br />the midriff and stressed the breasts--using stuff including whalebone and steel; the crinoline in<br />the mid 1800s emphasized the midsection; as well as the bustle, appearing in 1868, accentuated the buttocks.53 Bathing suit<br />design now focuses attention on the breasts and pubic region.<br />E.B. Hurlock writes: "When primitive folks are unaccustomed to wearing clothing, setting it on for the<br />first time does not decrease their immorality, as the women of missionary societies believe it will. It's only the<br />opposite effect. It attracts attention to the human body, particularly for all those parts of it that are covered for the first time." 54<br />Rob Boyte notes wryly that "fabric individuals, when they do strip in front of others, typically do it for fire, and find<br />the bikini design tanlines alluring.<br />Reveals how clothes patterns become a fetish of the body." 55 Havelock Ellis writes: "In Case the conquest of sexual<br />desire were the first and last concern of life it'd be more practical to forbid clothes than to forbid<br />nakedness." 56<br />38. The fashion industry rides on the sex appeal of clothes.<br />Peter Fryer writes: "The changes in women's trends are essentially determined by the demand to maintain<br />men's sexual attraction, and consequently to transfer the principal zone of lusty display once a given portion of the body has<br />been saturated with appealing power to the point of satiation. . . .<br />erogenous zone to replace the zone which, for the time being, is played out." 57<br />39. Differences of clothes between the genders focus attention on sex differences.58<br />Psychologist J.C. Flugel writes: "There seems to be (notably in modern life) no vital component in the<br />nature, habits, or functions of both genders that would necessitate a striking difference of costume--other than the<br />desire to accentuate gender differences themselves; an accentuation that mainly serves the end of more readily and<br />Often arousing sexual desire." 59<br />40. Many psychologists think that clothing may initially have developed, in part, as a way of<br />focusing sexual focus.60<br />41. Partial clothes is more sexually arousing (in commonly unhealthy ways) than total nudity.<br /> [https://s3.amazonaws.com/ff-naturist/beach-femdom.html https://s3.amazonaws.com/ff-naturist/beach-femdom.html] writes: "The more essential clothing is, the more meaning attaches to its absence and the<br />more consciousness is created about any relation between both states." 61 Elizabeth B. [https://s3.amazonaws.com/ff-naturist/nude-on-beach.html https://s3.amazonaws.com/ff-naturist/nude-on-beach.html] that "it's<br />unquestionably a well known fact that recognizable things arouse no fascination, while concealment brings enchantment and<br />stimulates interest . . . a draped body with just enough covering to suggest the outline, is far more alluring than a<br />Completely nude body." 62 And Lee Baxandall detects, "the 'virtually'-nude beaches, where bikinis and thongs are<br />paraded, are more sexually titillating than a clothing-optional resort or beach. What is natural is more fulfilling,<br /><br /><br />63<br />42. [https:/s3.amazonaws.com/last-naturist/family-nudists.html https:/s3.amazonaws.com/last-naturist/family-nudists.html] --notably imposed modesty--simply adds to sexual attraction and desire.64<br />Reena Glazer writes: "Women's breasts are sexually stimulating to (heterosexual) men, at least in part<br />Because they're openly inaccessible; society further eroticizes the female breast by labeling it shameful to expose.<br />This component of the forbidden merely perpetuates the extreme male reaction female exposure allegedly<br />inspires." 65<br />43. Topfree66 inequality (requiring girls, but not men, to wear tops) produces an unhealthy fixation<br />with breasts as sexual objects.<br />44. The identification of breasts as sexual objects in our culture has caused the discouragement of breastfeeding,<br />the encouragement of unnecessary cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation, and avoidance of necessary<br />breast examinations by women.<br />
| + | 誰說我們付給幼稚園上門補習明星時，他們正獲得銀行家般的薪水。<br />上週，《現代教育》（Modern Education）在當地報紙上發表公開信，向競爭對手信標學院（Beacon College）的明星導師林逸妍（Lam Yat-yan）支付8500萬港元（如果他跳船並帶走25,000名學生）。<br />現在，Beacon已申請首次公開募股。那些很少閱讀其招股說明書的人可能會被其眾多警告之一震驚。<br />它說：“這樣的補習中介服務對我們集團的損失可能會導致學生入學率大幅下降，並對我們的業務產生重大不利影響。”<br />好吧，現年28歲的林先生是Beacon的頂級家教和搖錢樹，在上一個財政年度單身為學校賺了約1.31億港元，約佔其總收入3.28億港元的40％。如果您想知道Modern Education提出的8,500萬港元的刺激性報價僅僅是為了尋求關注，您可能會再考慮。教授中文的林先生非常值得。他輸給Be火台將是災難性的，儘管到目前為止他說他不會離開。<br /><br />他在Facebook上寫道：“多出的5,000萬港元，8,000萬港元對我來說沒有任何關係。”<br /><br />現代教育在信標上的引人注目的舉動不僅僅在於挖拔明星員工，還在於破壞主要競爭對手的上市野心。 這確實是一件令人討厭的事情，部分是因為有這麼多錢危在旦夕。 市場研究機構Euromonitor估計，該行業去年的收入超過10億港元。 大約有180,300名學生進入補習學校學習，其中大部分來自中學。<br />這種寄生的生意以我們的教育系統效率低下為生，並以年輕學生及其父母的不安全感為生。 該行業的年收入為10億港元，佔政府在中學教育上支出的4％以上。<br />當然， [http://pandora.nla.gov.au/external.html?link=https://mytutors.com.hk/搵補習老師/初中全科補習 沙田上門補習] 。 但是，如果我們的學校和教育系統運轉正常，父母就不必每年支付10億美元來為子女提供上門補習 大埔幫助。 相反，私人補習已經成為學生之間不斷升級的軍備競賽。 這就是為什麼這是一個偉大的生意。<br /> |
