Breasts are a sexually charged body part, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unrealistic. I mean, sure, they can be used for feeding infants.
I'm sorry, but this entire sentence just sounded like the purpose of breasts (feeding babies) was optional.
No, the entire purpose of them is to feed babies.
Society has labeled them as sexually attractive, and like you said, there isn't anything wrong with it. Of course they are sexually appealing to a lot of people. But that doesn't mean a woman has to cover up because of what others find attractive. You said in your previous comment that she's "trying to normalize something sexual charged" except that they are normal. Breasts are ridiculously normal, every woman has them. They were something completely normal that ended up being sexualized.
Hell, people have sexualized other things like back muscles, collar bones, even feet (thanks, fetishes), but does that mean we should cover all of those up too?
.. are you seriously going to act like guys don't find curves to be a huge turn on? Do you really, seriously, think that is even remotely va… morelid? Breasts are a sexually charged body part, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unrealistic. I mean, sure, they can be used for feeding infants. Does that mean that can't also be sexually attractive? Of course not.
Has the world truly come to the point that there are actually people out there that think natural attraction is something that needs to be ignored because of some ridiculous, irrational "equality" agenda?
No one is saying that people can't be attracted to these things! omfg. People are of course going to stare at a bare chested women because people give them attractive. Bare chests come with the addition of being stared at, for both genders. But just because they're appealing, it doesn't give them the right to do anything beyond staring.
Your ass isn't a sexual organ either. Should we just expose that as well?
This is irrelevant, given there's no double standard on showing your ass.
Hell, let's all just stop wearing clothes entirely, right?
Well no, because you'd be showing your sexual organs. Which is called "public indecency" and is pretty much illegal.
The fact that breasts are not sexual organs is totally irrelevant.
Sorry, but it IS relevant, given that there's people who actually think breasts are sexual organs.
Like honestly, you really do need to explain yourself. Because I don't see any logical reason as to why breasts can't be shown.
Do I really need to? Has the world truly come to the point that there are actually people out there that think natural attraction is somethi… moreng that needs to be ignored because of some ridiculous, irrational "equality" agenda? Your ass isn't a sexual organ either. Should we just expose that as well? Hell, let's all just stop wearing clothes entirely, right?
The fact that breasts are not sexual organs is totally irrelevant.
Even if you got the wrong word and meant that I have a phobia against the other gender.
Didn't have anything to do with gender. I swear to god I googled it (bc I needed reassuring) and it was a fear of foreign and nontraditional things. So I'm assuming I read something else, but other than that, no. Nothing to do with the fear of a gender lmao.
Even if you got the wrong word and meant that I have a phobia against the other gender. I still don't understand how you can come to that co… morenclusion from two words. Disagreeing with a feminist does not mean I don't like women, in fact, I have the utmost respect for majority of women. I'm still allowed to disagree with things though, it's called opinion, and it makes for good discussion.
Why would a man need to walk bare chested down a city street? Of course people have done it. But guys would be looking going, 'what the fuck is this dude doing' as well as women. It's not a beach or a coastal town. You dress appropriately for certain situations/places. This has been a societal norm for millennia.
I'm not even lying to you when I say that I live in the city (and I used to live in the suburbs) and have seen men walk around bare chested. And it's usually when it's a hot day, some days are even average weather.
I have never seen a man bare-chested walking down a city street, ever, and I probably never will.
ok??
I hope you're not tryin… moreg to deny that it happens.
Why would a man need to walk bare chested down a city street? Of course people have done it. But guys would be looking going, 'what the fuck is this dude doing' as well as women. It's not a beach or a coastal town. You dress appropriately for certain situations/places. This has been a societal norm for millennia.
EDIT: My quotations keep screwing up and it's late, deleted the rest of what I wrote and will respond later.
Then I suggest they work on improving that, however they can, instead of succumbing to delusion and becoming a vitriolic mess of a person - obsessed with righting wrong's that aren't even an issue
It's obviously an issue to them if they feel that way. You can't decide what's an issue and what isn't to other people. For example (and I'll keep it simple), I got a new pair of expensive shoes. Someone then steals my new shoes. Clearly this is an issue for me, since I paid a lot of money for basically nothing now. Then you turn around and say "Get a grip, they're just shoes. I don't think this is an issue."
If I'm ignorant, I don't know what the hell that makes you, to be honest.
a fukn legend ye
Toy? All this talk of toys... what are you on, exactly? This is such a strange and illogical worldview, so much so I don't even know where to begin.
lmao I actually can't even respond to this, it's like I can't make a fucking analogy without you saying "wow b logical m8"
Because the world is a big place, with a lot of problems, I just don't see this - as a rational human being - being one of them.
You really aren't being rational at all, trying to silence people's problems. If that's rational, then fuck, Hitler was the most rational guy I know. Truly breaks the rational barrier.
If you don't see how this is a problem for a lot of people, then don't try and tell them it's not. People see things and understand them differently.
but trying to make it out to be something it's not, this big display of greatness, is as unnecessary as it is unavailing
How is people simply trying to bring a double standard to light "unnecessary" and "something that it's not"? Why does it bother you that people are trying to diminish a double standard? Like if it doesn't affect you, then okay. Go on with your life.
As if I could. There seems to be no silencing the feminazi train of hateful bitterness, and flat-out delusion
What?! How could you possibly relate 'silencing the fact that a lot of women are shamed for their breast size' with extreme feminism???? I literally have no idea how you could post that without thinking twice. You're acting like ANY sort of issue that women have shouldn't be addressed.
Anyway, I'm not denying these things exist - I'm just denying the fact, they require such levels of attention, both in the media and out.
I didn't say anything about denying, I said silencing. Something you seem to do and you just said that you do. Denying the fact that they need attention? How else is stuff supposed to be brought to light? A fucking carrier pigeon?
Unnecessary public nudity is being judged, especially because it's the under guise of being this great empowering revolt of strength and pride.
lmao oh my god
Okay, so if this was a video about a man riding around the city shirtless, you know for a fact that no one would give a shit and call it "public nudity."
It's a chest! Literally a chest. It's not a sexual organ like a penis/vagina. It's not like someone's spreading their cheeks. It's just a woman, minding her own business, as she rides around the city shirtless.
This has got to be the most ignorant thing I've read. I agree with your "take charge of your own life, fuck what anyone else thinks" stance,… more but there's tons of people in the world don't have as thick of skin like you or me, you can't tell someone to "get a grip on reality" because they don't feel good in their own body due to being seen as a toy.
Then I suggest they work on improving that, however they can, instead of succumbing to delusion and becoming a vitriolic mess of a person - obsessed with righting wrong's that aren't even an issue, everywhere they look. It's not healthy for anyone or anything. If I'm ignorant, I don't know what the hell that makes you, to be honest.
The person making someone feel like a toy is the one who should be getting a fucking grip on reality and knowing that these people aren't walking to the beach or riding their bike to work as eye candy or a message board (catcalling). This goes both ways, fo… [view original content]
Firstly, both genders are expected to keep their torso's covered, unless there's a legitimate reason to do otherwise - with women getting the brunt of that expectation, due to the fact breasts, like it or not, are sexualised.
This was the societal norm I was talking about.
The fact anyone finds this damaging to their life just goes to show how good their life really is.
It's not as dramatic as "damage done to their life." More so that they find it unfair and want the same freedom.
Or the more people will get sick and tired of being lectured of minutia, while real-word matters get ignored.
Just because other issues are being put in the spot light doesn't exactly mean issues like war, the economy, ect, are going to be ignored.
People are different. You can stomp and shout and fight it, doesn't change the fact it's true, acknowledgements or not.
Of course they are, no doubt about it. But this is a subject about the human body, and while men and women are different biologically, and in this case, what hangs off their chest, doesn't mean one should get more of a freedom than the other.
I'm not going to get over whiny, cry babies, polluting the media non-stop with things that don't matter, under the guise that they do.
Except they do matter. Just because they don't matter to you doesn't mean they don't matter. Children starving in a 3rd world country doesn't affect you, but you still think that it belongs in the media when fuck all is being done to solve the issue.
I don't understand why it bothers you that these things are being put on a platform? You didn't have to watch the video, you didn't have to make a comment and engage in conversation like you previously said you were "forced" to. You feel obligated to, which you aren't.
You can't enforce bullshit societal norms and expect people to be okay with it.
Firstly, both genders are expected to keep their tor… moreso's covered, unless there's a legitimate reason to do otherwise - with women getting the brunt of that expectation, due to the fact breasts, like it or not, are sexualised. The fact anyone finds this damaging to their life just goes to show how good their life really is.
If you're a man and want to wear makeup, fucking do it. Fuck whoever gives you shit for it, you're clearly better than them.
I don't care. The victim, double-standard game isn't one that interests me, but it apparently it does everyone else, so I'm forced to join in on occasion, as I'm doing here.
If you're a woman and you want to walk the streets bare chested like men can, fucking do it. Feel confident and empowered, society hasn't got shit on you.
I agree...
You see, the more you shed light to ALL doub… [view original content]
Even if you got the wrong word and meant that I have a phobia against the other gender.
Didn't have anything to do with gender. I sw… moreear to god I googled it (bc I needed reassuring) and it was a fear of foreign and nontraditional things. So I'm assuming I read something else, but other than that, no. Nothing to do with the fear of a gender lmao.
I'm sorry, but this entire sentence just sounded like the purpose of breasts (feeding babies) was optional. No, the entire purpose of them is to feed babies.
I didn't say a word about their purpose being subjective. Obviously they can serve the purpose of feeding babies, I never argued otherwise. I only made the point that their bodily purpose has nothing to do with them being sexually attractive or not. They can still serve the purpose of breastfeeding and still be sexually attractive.
Society has labeled them as sexually attractive, and like you said, there isn't anything wrong with it. Of course they are sexually appealing to a lot of people. But that doesn't mean a woman has to cover up because of what others find attractive.
I'm glad that you don't find anything wrong with it, but I don't think it's a simple matter of them being sexually attractive just because society has said so. Society has only increased the effect through the use of clothing, but that's an inherent effect for the entire body in general. As for women having to "cover up because of what others find attractive", I think this is reasonable. We're not talking about attractive in the sense that someone would find someone else's face to be attractive, we're talking about something that is sexually stimulating, something that is highly associated with sexual nature. Given that, why would a woman just walk around topless as if it meant nothing? It doesn't make any sense, and as I said before, I think it's very delusional. Grant it breasts would in fact be less sexually stimulating if women could just be topless whenever they feel like it (again, this line of thought is true for the entire body in general), but they would still be sexually appealing.
You said in your previous comment that she's "trying to normalize something sexual charged" except that they are normal. Breasts are ridiculously normal, every woman has them.
You're stating the obvious here. I never said anything about them not being "normal".
Hell, people have sexualized other things like back muscles, collar bones, even feet (thanks, fetishes), but does that mean we should cover all of those up too?
These things aren't comparable. Fetishes easily aren't for the fact that you're comparing something that a handful of people find sexually appealing to something that is essentially unanimously sexually arousing. I would say that a guy's muscles are actually sort of similar in the sense that the average guy honestly doesn't even actually have much to show off in this regard, and even for the ones that do, it's covered by their amount of fat. But that is sort of a side note to the larger point, which is that both men and women have the things that you are listing off as "sexualized". Obviously muscles are more developed in men, but that isn't the point. Women have breasts, guys do not. They're exclusive to the female body, and they're a sign of being sexually mature. Breasts are the only difference between a feminine chest and a masculine one, and this is a large part of what makes them so stimulating to the opposite sex.
All in all I don't understand why people feel the need to challenge the level of sexuality associated with breasts, as if their level of sexuality isn't legitimate or something. Clearly it is legitimate, and I think it should stay that way. In arguing for female toplessness, you're essentially making an argument for total nudity. If you were to take your line of thought and apply it to the body in general, what is the point of having people wear clothes at all..? Your argument would apply to literally any part of the body that we cover up in society. I think it goes without saying that enabling total nudity is a little ridiculous. Let's instead all be realistic and accept the stimulation associated with specific body parts be what it really and truly is.
Breasts are a sexually charged body part, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unr… moreealistic. I mean, sure, they can be used for feeding infants.
I'm sorry, but this entire sentence just sounded like the purpose of breasts (feeding babies) was optional.
No, the entire purpose of them is to feed babies.
Society has labeled them as sexually attractive, and like you said, there isn't anything wrong with it. Of course they are sexually appealing to a lot of people. But that doesn't mean a woman has to cover up because of what others find attractive. You said in your previous comment that she's "trying to normalize something sexual charged" except that they are normal. Breasts are ridiculously normal, every woman has them. They were something completely normal that ended up being sexualized.
Hell, people have sexualized other things like back muscles, collar bones, even feet (thanks, fetishes), but does that mean we should cover all of those up too?
breasts are a sexually charged body part, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unrealistic.
Let's check the history of boobies.
Primitive times: Free boobs is natural.
VIIe century: only islamic states forbid free boobs.
XVe century: The fashion for women in the court of France is to have a dress with a boob (or two) out. Socially acceptable, yet showing his legs or shoulders "naked" were inacceptable and seen as sexualised.
The same goes in the city of Firenze before Savonarole comes in.
XVIe century: everyone wear it, from the lowest to the richest woman in England.
XIX century: it's only at this moment you've got to cover your boobs. Thanks to puritan England.
XXI century: nowaday they're sexualised.
What can we see of this? Boobs are sexualised only because the society want it. I recognise it's kind of odd to accept it's society which creates our desires. Yet it is.
Wanting it back isn't non sense, it didn't cause problems at these moments.
Also simplifying the arguments of the opposition by saying "patriarchy! Oppressed!" is kind dumb imo. As dumbs as the ones who actually use these arguments for everyday's life.
.. are you seriously going to act like guys don't find curves to be a huge turn on? Do you really, seriously, think that is even remotely va… morelid? Breasts are a sexually charged body part, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unrealistic. I mean, sure, they can be used for feeding infants. Does that mean that can't also be sexually attractive? Of course not.
I'm not really going to delve deep into history to form an opinion on whether or not nudity is acceptable in this day and age. It's irrelevant, and a bit of a cop out. I'm not really a fan of repeating myself over and over again, so I'm just going to copy and paste what I had said to another user:
Women have breasts, guys do not. They're exclusive to the female body, and they're a sign of being sexually mature. Breasts are the only difference between a feminine chest and a masculine one, and this is a large part of what makes them so stimulating to the opposite sex. All in all I don't understand why people feel the need to challenge the level of sexuality associated with breasts, as if their level of sexuality isn't legitimate or something. Clearly it is legitimate simply based on how they are almost unanimously perceived, and I think it should stay that way. In arguing for female toplessness, you're essentially making an argument for total nudity. If you were to take your line of thought and apply it to the body in general, what is the point of having people wear clothes at all..? Your argument would apply to literally any part of the body that we cover up in society. I think it goes without saying that enabling total nudity is a little ridiculous. Let's instead all be realistic and accept the stimulation associated with specific body parts be what it really and truly is.
Also simplifying the arguments of the opposition by saying "patriarchy! Oppressed!" is kind dumb imo. As dumbs as the ones who actually use these arguments for everyday's life.
Except this topic seems to almost always be debated in regards to that very line of thought; that today's perception of the female body is sexist, oppressive, unfair, ect. I think this line of thought is ridiculous, hence why I'm in this conversation in the first place.
breasts are a sexually charged body part, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unr… moreealistic.
Let's check the history of boobies.
Primitive times: Free boobs is natural.
VIIe century: only islamic states forbid free boobs.
XVe century: The fashion for women in the court of France is to have a dress with a boob (or two) out. Socially acceptable, yet showing his legs or shoulders "naked" were inacceptable and seen as sexualised.
The same goes in the city of Firenze before Savonarole comes in.
XVIe century: everyone wear it, from the lowest to the richest woman in England.
XIX century: it's only at this moment you've got to cover your boobs. Thanks to puritan England.
XXI century: nowaday they're sexualised.
What can we see of this? Boobs are sexualised only because the society want it. I recognise it's kind of odd to accept it's society which creates our des… [view original content]
I think you have it kind of backwards though. If I recall women's breast evolving the way they have on humans isn't natural in the animal kingdom for mammals. Very few have noticeable breast outside of animals like Goats, Cows and what not. For humans women's breast are pronounced and noticeable when compared to a vast majority of mammals not as a biological and necessary purpose but because of natural selection and male attraction. Similar to why men grow beards in some parts of the world, but not in other parts.
So saying that, yes they exist for the so purpose of being a tool of sexual attraction of the opposite sex, and men are naturally pre programmed as such. Heck breast are worshiped by man. It's a given fact all across the world, and nearly across all cultures. Breast for example are literally almost entirely skin/fat. Big or small they do their job when needed and the size is only decorative. lol
Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unrealistic.
I'm simply responding to this. It's you who are delusional and unrealistic to think it's new. Is it irrelevant to mention history? No, because it shows that it can happen the other way around without harming women and because it can change. Want it or not, it will be back, then leave before going back once again, just as everything happens in history.
In arguing for female toplessness, you're essentially making an argument for total nudity
I'm not really going to delve deep into history to form an opinion on whether or not nudity is acceptable in this day and age. It's irreleva… morent, and a bit of a cop out. I'm not really a fan of repeating myself over and over again, so I'm just going to copy and paste what I had said to another user:
Women have breasts, guys do not. They're exclusive to the female body, and they're a sign of being sexually mature. Breasts are the only difference between a feminine chest and a masculine one, and this is a large part of what makes them so stimulating to the opposite sex. All in all I don't understand why people feel the need to challenge the level of sexuality associated with breasts, as if their level of sexuality isn't legitimate or something. Clearly it is legitimate simply based on how they are almost unanimously perceived, and I think it should stay that way. In arguing for female toplessness, you're essentially making an argument for tota… [view original content]
Packing a handgun is legal and glorified by society. Exposing you tits is illegal and those who support it are considered "feminazis". Makes sense to me.
I think you have it kind of backwards though. If I recall women's breast evolving the way they have on humans isn't natural in the animal k… moreingdom for mammals. Very few have noticeable breast outside of animals like Goats, Cows and what not. For humans women's breast are pronounced and noticeable when compared to a vast majority of mammals not as a biological and necessary purpose but because of natural selection and male attraction. Similar to why men grow beards in some parts of the world, but not in other parts.
So saying that, yes they exist for the so purpose of being a tool of sexual attraction of the opposite sex, and men are naturally pre programmed as such. Heck breast are worshiped by man. It's a given fact all across the world, and nearly across all cultures. Breast for example are literally almost entirely skin/fat. Big or small they do their job when needed and the size is only decorative. lol
Packing a handgun is legal and glorified by society. Exposing you tits is illegal and those who support it are considered "feminazis". Makes sense to me.
I say: pack heat and let the boobies hang free!
As a women, I don't understand the "Free The Boob" movement because I'd feel weirded out walking around topless. Am I going to shame other women for doing it? Absolutely not. Knock yourselves out.
As a women, I don't understand the "Free The Boob" movement because I'd feel weirded out walking around topless. Am I going to shame other women for doing it? Absolutely not. Knock yourselves out.
All mammals have breast, just most mammals it isn't pronounced and noticeable. Unless said animal has nursed lots of children. In that case then breast often become noticeable during nursing and after so often the constant swelling/stretching from milk production makes breast more noticeable over time on said mammal. Humans like a hand full of mammal's have noticeable breast long before nursing. That unnecessary notability serves no purpose but attraction. Larger breast are believed to have evolved on human females primarily to attracted mates, as a sign of fertility and such. Men are pre-programmed to adore them.
That being said, if breast were not for attraction there would be some cultures that women would not have them at least being so noticeable. Similar to how Native Americans did not have facial hair as what was considered attractive over tens of thousands of years among native tribes likely obviously wasn't facial hair. lol
Good example.. Humans evolved from apes yes? Very few female apes have noticeable breast, unless they've nursed children, once that starts, then gravity takes over often and causes them to be ever more noticeable until they eventually die. lol
As a women, I don't understand the "Free The Boob" movement because I'd feel weirded out walking around topless. Am I going to shame other women for doing it? Absolutely not. Knock yourselves out.
Would you care to maybe address any of the actual points that I made?
No.
Why not? There is no difference. The same arguments that are being used for exposing breasts can be used for any single body part that is covered up today. At various points in history there was nothing wrong with being naked. Does that mean that in today's day and age that should be used as justification for being nude whenever someone might feel like it? Obviously not. So no, the fact that it was acceptable to expose breasts at various parts in history carries no justification what so ever in fighting against how it is handled in the modern day and age. It also has nothing to do with the points that I have been making.
You're saying that society is to blame for today's perception of breasts by covering them up, and seeing as society has mandated clothing in general, your rationale would have to extend to any body part that has been covered up by society, which could mean arguing for nudity in any particular sense that you would want. This paints the picture that this is not an argument that can reasonably be used. Instead, it makes sense to actually look at how nudity is perceived in modern society.
Acting otherwise is incredibly delusional and unrealistic.
I'm simply responding to this. It's you who are delusional and unrealisti… morec to think it's new. Is it irrelevant to mention history? No, because it shows that it can happen the other way around without harming women and because it can change. Want it or not, it will be back, then leave before going back once again, just as everything happens in history.
In arguing for female toplessness, you're essentially making an argument for total nudity
No.
Breasts are sexualised by society while sex are sex,there's a difference there.
At various points in history there was nothing wrong with being naked
Please do tell when. Except for practicing sports in Greece and maybe in Rome, I would like to know when. While boobs is only forbidden since two centuries, except if you live in some islamic states, in which there is nothing wrong about it mate.
Instead, it makes sense to actually look at how nudity is perceived in modern society.
"Modern" society changes. It's not something stable. Those who are pro-it have more legitimacy to do it than the others actually.
Would you care to maybe address any of the actual points that I made?
No.
Why not? There is no difference. The same arguments … morethat are being used for exposing breasts can be used for any single body part that is covered up today. At various points in history there was nothing wrong with being naked. Does that mean that in today's day and age that should be used as justification for being nude whenever someone might feel like it? Obviously not. So no, the fact that it was acceptable to expose breasts at various parts in history carries no justification what so ever in fighting against how it is handled in the modern day and age. It also has nothing to do with the points that I have been making.
You're saying that society is to blame for today's perception of breasts by covering them up, and seeing as society has mandated clothing in general, your rationale would have to extend to any body part that has been covered up by socie… [view original content]
Breasts are sexualised by society while sex are sex,there's a difference there.
This is kind of hard to understand to be honest (not sure if there is a language barrier or what), but I'm assuming you're talking about sex organs? It doesn't even have to go that far. It's not as if someone can choose to show their ass just because they feel like it. That alone shoots a hole through your argument. Sexuality also does not have to be restricted to sex organs just for the fact that they are sex organs. It's not as if you can justify the sexual stimulus associated with sex organs and then deny the sexual stimulus of breasts just because genitals are necessary for the act of sex whereas breasts are not. There is just no basis to that argument.
Please do tell when.
I think you understand the fact that at various times in the world, in different cultures, nudity was not necessarily frowned upon, or at the very least it was not looked at as it is today in modern society. A very simple google search can point you in the right direction if you're truly unaware, or there is always this: http://www.primitivism.com/nudity.htm
The idea that "x" was done way back when therefore "x" should also be done today doesn't carry any logical weight, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the points that I have been making in this thread.
"Modern" society changes. It's not something stable.
.. Okay? I don't disagree with you on that, though it doesn't really have anything to do with what I had said.
Why not? There is no difference.
Breasts are sexualised by society while sex are sex,there's a difference there.
At various po… moreints in history there was nothing wrong with being naked
Please do tell when. Except for practicing sports in Greece and maybe in Rome, I would like to know when. While boobs is only forbidden since two centuries, except if you live in some islamic states, in which there is nothing wrong about it mate.
Instead, it makes sense to actually look at how nudity is perceived in modern society.
"Modern" society changes. It's not something stable. Those who are pro-it have more legitimacy to do it than the others actually.
Maybe packing a handgun is glorified in the USA lol...
Pack a handgun in Australia you are either a deadset idiot, or a terrorist. Either one will get you jail time.
Packing a handgun is legal and glorified by society. Exposing you tits is illegal and those who support it are considered "feminazis". Makes sense to me.
I say: pack heat and let the boobies hang free!
Maybe packing a handgun is glorified in the USA lol...
Pack a handgun in Australia you are either a deadset idiot, or a terrorist. Either one will get you jail time.
Comments
I'm sorry, but this entire sentence just sounded like the purpose of breasts (feeding babies) was optional.
No, the entire purpose of them is to feed babies.
Society has labeled them as sexually attractive, and like you said, there isn't anything wrong with it. Of course they are sexually appealing to a lot of people. But that doesn't mean a woman has to cover up because of what others find attractive. You said in your previous comment that she's "trying to normalize something sexual charged" except that they are normal. Breasts are ridiculously normal, every woman has them. They were something completely normal that ended up being sexualized.
Hell, people have sexualized other things like back muscles, collar bones, even feet (thanks, fetishes), but does that mean we should cover all of those up too?
No one is saying that people can't be attracted to these things! omfg. People are of course going to stare at a bare chested women because people give them attractive. Bare chests come with the addition of being stared at, for both genders. But just because they're appealing, it doesn't give them the right to do anything beyond staring.
This is irrelevant, given there's no double standard on showing your ass.
Well no, because you'd be showing your sexual organs. Which is called "public indecency" and is pretty much illegal.
Sorry, but it IS relevant, given that there's people who actually think breasts are sexual organs.
Like honestly, you really do need to explain yourself. Because I don't see any logical reason as to why breasts can't be shown.
what the FuCK
i stg it meant something else
I EVEN GOOGLED IT AND MADE SURE
Didn't have anything to do with gender. I swear to god I googled it (bc I needed reassuring) and it was a fear of foreign and nontraditional things. So I'm assuming I read something else, but other than that, no. Nothing to do with the fear of a gender lmao.
I'm not even lying to you when I say that I live in the city (and I used to live in the suburbs) and have seen men walk around bare chested. And it's usually when it's a hot day, some days are even average weather.
So idk, you tell me.
It's obviously an issue to them if they feel that way. You can't decide what's an issue and what isn't to other people. For example (and I'll keep it simple), I got a new pair of expensive shoes. Someone then steals my new shoes. Clearly this is an issue for me, since I paid a lot of money for basically nothing now. Then you turn around and say "Get a grip, they're just shoes. I don't think this is an issue."
a fukn legend ye
lmao I actually can't even respond to this, it's like I can't make a fucking analogy without you saying "wow b logical m8"
You really aren't being rational at all, trying to silence people's problems. If that's rational, then fuck, Hitler was the most rational guy I know. Truly breaks the rational barrier.
If you don't see how this is a problem for a lot of people, then don't try and tell them it's not. People see things and understand them differently.
How is people simply trying to bring a double standard to light "unnecessary" and "something that it's not"? Why does it bother you that people are trying to diminish a double standard? Like if it doesn't affect you, then okay. Go on with your life.
What?! How could you possibly relate 'silencing the fact that a lot of women are shamed for their breast size' with extreme feminism???? I literally have no idea how you could post that without thinking twice. You're acting like ANY sort of issue that women have shouldn't be addressed.
I didn't say anything about denying, I said silencing. Something you seem to do and you just said that you do. Denying the fact that they need attention? How else is stuff supposed to be brought to light? A fucking carrier pigeon?
lmao oh my god
Okay, so if this was a video about a man riding around the city shirtless, you know for a fact that no one would give a shit and call it "public nudity."
It's a chest! Literally a chest. It's not a sexual organ like a penis/vagina. It's not like someone's spreading their cheeks. It's just a woman, minding her own business, as she rides around the city shirtless.
Get over it, pal.
tru lol
This was the societal norm I was talking about.
It's not as dramatic as "damage done to their life." More so that they find it unfair and want the same freedom.
Just because other issues are being put in the spot light doesn't exactly mean issues like war, the economy, ect, are going to be ignored.
Of course they are, no doubt about it. But this is a subject about the human body, and while men and women are different biologically, and in this case, what hangs off their chest, doesn't mean one should get more of a freedom than the other.
Except they do matter. Just because they don't matter to you doesn't mean they don't matter. Children starving in a 3rd world country doesn't affect you, but you still think that it belongs in the media when fuck all is being done to solve the issue.
I don't understand why it bothers you that these things are being put on a platform? You didn't have to watch the video, you didn't have to make a comment and engage in conversation like you previously said you were "forced" to. You feel obligated to, which you aren't.
Then what 'phobia' are you directing at me?
I always get annoyed when I see topless muscle mans. Shows me how untrained I am.
I didn't say a word about their purpose being subjective. Obviously they can serve the purpose of feeding babies, I never argued otherwise. I only made the point that their bodily purpose has nothing to do with them being sexually attractive or not. They can still serve the purpose of breastfeeding and still be sexually attractive.
I'm glad that you don't find anything wrong with it, but I don't think it's a simple matter of them being sexually attractive just because society has said so. Society has only increased the effect through the use of clothing, but that's an inherent effect for the entire body in general. As for women having to "cover up because of what others find attractive", I think this is reasonable. We're not talking about attractive in the sense that someone would find someone else's face to be attractive, we're talking about something that is sexually stimulating, something that is highly associated with sexual nature. Given that, why would a woman just walk around topless as if it meant nothing? It doesn't make any sense, and as I said before, I think it's very delusional. Grant it breasts would in fact be less sexually stimulating if women could just be topless whenever they feel like it (again, this line of thought is true for the entire body in general), but they would still be sexually appealing.
You're stating the obvious here. I never said anything about them not being "normal".
These things aren't comparable. Fetishes easily aren't for the fact that you're comparing something that a handful of people find sexually appealing to something that is essentially unanimously sexually arousing. I would say that a guy's muscles are actually sort of similar in the sense that the average guy honestly doesn't even actually have much to show off in this regard, and even for the ones that do, it's covered by their amount of fat. But that is sort of a side note to the larger point, which is that both men and women have the things that you are listing off as "sexualized". Obviously muscles are more developed in men, but that isn't the point. Women have breasts, guys do not. They're exclusive to the female body, and they're a sign of being sexually mature. Breasts are the only difference between a feminine chest and a masculine one, and this is a large part of what makes them so stimulating to the opposite sex.
All in all I don't understand why people feel the need to challenge the level of sexuality associated with breasts, as if their level of sexuality isn't legitimate or something. Clearly it is legitimate, and I think it should stay that way. In arguing for female toplessness, you're essentially making an argument for total nudity. If you were to take your line of thought and apply it to the body in general, what is the point of having people wear clothes at all..? Your argument would apply to literally any part of the body that we cover up in society. I think it goes without saying that enabling total nudity is a little ridiculous. Let's instead all be realistic and accept the stimulation associated with specific body parts be what it really and truly is.
Let's check the history of boobies.
Primitive times: Free boobs is natural.
VIIe century: only islamic states forbid free boobs.
XVe century: The fashion for women in the court of France is to have a dress with a boob (or two) out. Socially acceptable, yet showing his legs or shoulders "naked" were inacceptable and seen as sexualised.
The same goes in the city of Firenze before Savonarole comes in.
XVIe century: everyone wear it, from the lowest to the richest woman in England.
XIX century: it's only at this moment you've got to cover your boobs. Thanks to puritan England.
XXI century: nowaday they're sexualised.
What can we see of this? Boobs are sexualised only because the society want it. I recognise it's kind of odd to accept it's society which creates our desires. Yet it is.
Wanting it back isn't non sense, it didn't cause problems at these moments.
Also simplifying the arguments of the opposition by saying "patriarchy! Oppressed!" is kind dumb imo. As dumbs as the ones who actually use these arguments for everyday's life.
I'm not really going to delve deep into history to form an opinion on whether or not nudity is acceptable in this day and age. It's irrelevant, and a bit of a cop out. I'm not really a fan of repeating myself over and over again, so I'm just going to copy and paste what I had said to another user:
Women have breasts, guys do not. They're exclusive to the female body, and they're a sign of being sexually mature. Breasts are the only difference between a feminine chest and a masculine one, and this is a large part of what makes them so stimulating to the opposite sex. All in all I don't understand why people feel the need to challenge the level of sexuality associated with breasts, as if their level of sexuality isn't legitimate or something. Clearly it is legitimate simply based on how they are almost unanimously perceived, and I think it should stay that way. In arguing for female toplessness, you're essentially making an argument for total nudity. If you were to take your line of thought and apply it to the body in general, what is the point of having people wear clothes at all..? Your argument would apply to literally any part of the body that we cover up in society. I think it goes without saying that enabling total nudity is a little ridiculous. Let's instead all be realistic and accept the stimulation associated with specific body parts be what it really and truly is.
Except this topic seems to almost always be debated in regards to that very line of thought; that today's perception of the female body is sexist, oppressive, unfair, ect. I think this line of thought is ridiculous, hence why I'm in this conversation in the first place.
I think you have it kind of backwards though. If I recall women's breast evolving the way they have on humans isn't natural in the animal kingdom for mammals. Very few have noticeable breast outside of animals like Goats, Cows and what not. For humans women's breast are pronounced and noticeable when compared to a vast majority of mammals not as a biological and necessary purpose but because of natural selection and male attraction. Similar to why men grow beards in some parts of the world, but not in other parts.
So saying that, yes they exist for the so purpose of being a tool of sexual attraction of the opposite sex, and men are naturally pre programmed as such. Heck breast are worshiped by man. It's a given fact all across the world, and nearly across all cultures. Breast for example are literally almost entirely skin/fat. Big or small they do their job when needed and the size is only decorative. lol
I'm simply responding to this. It's you who are delusional and unrealistic to think it's new. Is it irrelevant to mention history? No, because it shows that it can happen the other way around without harming women and because it can change. Want it or not, it will be back, then leave before going back once again, just as everything happens in history.
No.
Packing a handgun is legal and glorified by society. Exposing you tits is illegal and those who support it are considered "feminazis". Makes sense to me.
I say: pack heat and let the boobies hang free!
FUCKING REKT SON!
Elephants have boobies
beautiful
As a women, I don't understand the "Free The Boob" movement because I'd feel weirded out walking around topless. Am I going to shame other women for doing it? Absolutely not. Knock yourselves out.
...internal misogynist
The power of Anita repels me.
All mammals have breast, just most mammals it isn't pronounced and noticeable. Unless said animal has nursed lots of children. In that case then breast often become noticeable during nursing and after so often the constant swelling/stretching from milk production makes breast more noticeable over time on said mammal. Humans like a hand full of mammal's have noticeable breast long before nursing. That unnecessary notability serves no purpose but attraction. Larger breast are believed to have evolved on human females primarily to attracted mates, as a sign of fertility and such. Men are pre-programmed to adore them.
That being said, if breast were not for attraction there would be some cultures that women would not have them at least being so noticeable. Similar to how Native Americans did not have facial hair as what was considered attractive over tens of thousands of years among native tribes likely obviously wasn't facial hair. lol
Good example.. Humans evolved from apes yes? Very few female apes have noticeable breast, unless they've nursed children, once that starts, then gravity takes over often and causes them to be ever more noticeable until they eventually die. lol
Only if they go jogging....
Would you care to maybe address any of the actual points that I made?
Why not? There is no difference. The same arguments that are being used for exposing breasts can be used for any single body part that is covered up today. At various points in history there was nothing wrong with being naked. Does that mean that in today's day and age that should be used as justification for being nude whenever someone might feel like it? Obviously not. So no, the fact that it was acceptable to expose breasts at various parts in history carries no justification what so ever in fighting against how it is handled in the modern day and age. It also has nothing to do with the points that I have been making.
You're saying that society is to blame for today's perception of breasts by covering them up, and seeing as society has mandated clothing in general, your rationale would have to extend to any body part that has been covered up by society, which could mean arguing for nudity in any particular sense that you would want. This paints the picture that this is not an argument that can reasonably be used. Instead, it makes sense to actually look at how nudity is perceived in modern society.
Breasts are sexualised by society while sex are sex,there's a difference there.
Please do tell when. Except for practicing sports in Greece and maybe in Rome, I would like to know when. While boobs is only forbidden since two centuries, except if you live in some islamic states, in which there is nothing wrong about it mate.
"Modern" society changes. It's not something stable. Those who are pro-it have more legitimacy to do it than the others actually.
This is kind of hard to understand to be honest (not sure if there is a language barrier or what), but I'm assuming you're talking about sex organs? It doesn't even have to go that far. It's not as if someone can choose to show their ass just because they feel like it. That alone shoots a hole through your argument. Sexuality also does not have to be restricted to sex organs just for the fact that they are sex organs. It's not as if you can justify the sexual stimulus associated with sex organs and then deny the sexual stimulus of breasts just because genitals are necessary for the act of sex whereas breasts are not. There is just no basis to that argument.
I think you understand the fact that at various times in the world, in different cultures, nudity was not necessarily frowned upon, or at the very least it was not looked at as it is today in modern society. A very simple google search can point you in the right direction if you're truly unaware, or there is always this: http://www.primitivism.com/nudity.htm
The idea that "x" was done way back when therefore "x" should also be done today doesn't carry any logical weight, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the points that I have been making in this thread.
.. Okay? I don't disagree with you on that, though it doesn't really have anything to do with what I had said.
Maybe packing a handgun is glorified in the USA lol...
Pack a handgun in Australia you are either a deadset idiot, or a terrorist. Either one will get you jail time.
Gun culture is very strong here. Media has drilled it into our heads that packing a handgun is manly.
I take it you disagree with the public having guns? Simply curious, it's cool whether you do or don't.