In most areas, women aren't allowed to be topless in public, but this is //not// a gender equality issue. Amirite?
It would be about gender inequality if men were able to show their private parts and women weren't. That's not the case though. No one is allowed to show their private parts. Thus, it is equal. The same rules apply. Women just have an extra private part that children and men don't have. That's just how we're naturally made. It's different, but not unfair or unequal. Private parts determine sexual maturity. The penis, vagina, and breasts show sexual maturity so these are the parts that are supposed to be covered. Also, primates also found breasts as sexually appealing so this is not unique to humans. It also means that we didn't make breasts sexual. We naturally think they are sexual.
I disagree. I do not want to see topless men either. It should be equal. No shirtlessness in public. It is a gender issue because it does not apply to men now. It should.
it doesn't apply to little girls either
because they don't have the equipment
if it was a gender inequality thing
I would think it would include all females
moobs don't count
I'll explain that at the bottom
I'd be fine with no shirtless in public
but I don't think it should apply to children
I don't think it's agism
men and women are equal
but they do have differences
so I'm all for things like equality in the workplace and education
and whatnot
but not when it comes to clothing or things that pertain to physical strength
nope
the male anatomy of chest does not change after puberty
for females,
it does change after puberty
so all children regardless of gender and grown males can get away with being topless
children and male chests are naturally
pretty much the same
...........................................................
tl;dr
I like your idea of just stopping both sides from going topless
it used to be that no one went topless in public
I don't think that should've changed
BUUUT I don't think the whole topless issue is something done because of gender inequality
or sexism
(unlike inequality in the workplace/education)
How is it not?
"the male anatomy of chest does not change after puberty
for females,
it does change after puberty"
As with most other aspects of life, males and females are vastly different. But still ultimately equal.
I did say that
"men and women are equal
but they do have differences"
but dress of the genders is different
not because of inequality
one method isn't superior to the other
it's just different
Yes, the way each gender dresses is different. But should it be? Why can't a guy wear a dress if he wants to? Why can't a girl go topless if she wants to?
Social construct I think
where I'm from
guys where lungis
which sorta look like skirts
but it's not based off of gender inequality
it's based of of trying to look different from the opposite gender
women don't wear lungis
they wear another kind of skirt
...................................................
it's inappropriate to go topless in public because it's indecent exposure in majority of the world
it's rare to see it not so
female breasts are classed under private parts
if a teacher put his/her hand on a male teen's chest
it's not seen as anything
I see it happen
if a teacher did that to a female teen
big problem
that's sexual harassment
that's because it is sexual harassment
that's not gender inequality
that's just because the anatomy of a teen male and female are different
like I said before
different method of dressing does not mean inequality
it can be different and still be considered equal
Where I'm from, lots of boys get picked on for wearing "short shorts" because they're too girly. A skirt or skirt-like article would be nearly unheard-of for a guy to wear. How is that fair? Especially when girls don't have to look different from the opposite gender, wearing shoulder pads and slacks? Obviously, culture plays a huge part in this.
Indecent exposure, but only for women.
Just because it's widely accepted doesn't mean it's fair.
For the exact same reason. It's a gender equality issue.
Groping a person, regardless of gender, is sexual harassment.
Yes. The anatomy of each gender is different. But It doesn't necessarily have to be treated as such.
Hell, why do we have to wear clothes at all? Why must "private parts" be private? If someone wants to cover themselves, they should have every right to do so, right? But if someone doesn't feel like putting a top on or pants on one day, should they be required to? It's not like people don't know what's under others' clothes anyway.
yes
because the chest area is more sexual for women
it's indecent for males too in many places
"no shoes, no shirt, no service"
and patting a guy's chest is not groping in the least
patting a girl's chest is
it's ridiculous to say "My coach harassed me by patting my chest" for a guy
it's usually done to say "good job"
it's not sexual in any way
to accuse the coach of such ill intention is horrendous
and I don't think any guy would claim it was harassment
but with a girl
no way can a coach do that without coming off as some pervert
I don't see how that is inequality
that's just showing that the chest area is different
after puberty between genders
it has to do with difference in anatomy
not about inequality
inequality is stopping a female from getting an education or paying her less than her male counterpart for doing the same job
Why though? We've combated many other previous thought of sex appeal, beauty, provocativeness. Why can't we do the same things with breasts? I'm confident that if a woman's body weren't as forbidden, unknown, that it would be much less sexualized.
How often is that really enforced though?
That's exactly my point. Why is it wrong to do one thing to one gender and perfectly fine to do it to another? That's absolutely ridiculous!
Probably because it's not custom to. Just like many people falsely say that "guys can't be raped" or "guys don't get raped."
Inequality is "an unfair situation in which some people have more rights or better opportunities than other people." I think that both touching a person and having one gender being allowed to go shirtless fit nicely into this definition of inequality. And this one: "difference in size, degree, circumstances, etc.; lack of equality." Ooh, and this one: "injustice; partiality." Even this one too, which specifically defines the inequality of genders: "gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender. It arises from differences in socially constructed gender roles as well as biologically through chromosomes, brain structure, and hormonal differences. Who knew?
Yeah. Like not letting a woman go topless but letting her male counterpart do that which she can't? Or letting a person touch a man's chest but not a woman's?
anyone can get raped
do you think the patting thing is unfair or sexist?
I can't figure out how one can see it that way
I think there's place in Canada that allows women to be topless in public
but women still wear their tops
female breasts are still seen as sexual
it's almost a universal thing
that's because they are sexual
male breasts aren't
you don't pat a guy's chest in a sexual way usually
but with a girl, patting is sexual no matter what angle you look at it
why?
maybe the nerve ending s
it's more sexually arousing for women to be patted on their chest than for men to be patted
now that's a natural reaction
not social
Correct.
I think it's unfair that what's okay for one gender is not okay for another. But I said this in my previous comment.
Yes. But just because it's universal doesn't mean it's okay.
Because we've made them so. Having a high forehead used to be sexy for women, but that's pretty much done-away with.
Patting a girl's head isn't sexual. Why are breasts any different?
There aren't many differences between male and female breasts. Females have more fatty tissue and the Cooper's ligament, and they are slightly more sensitive than the nipples of a man (for breastfeeding) but they're overall very similar structurally.
Since when does arousal have anything to do with what wardrobe choices are deemed acceptable? Tons of people have foot fetishes, but we can still wear sandals, even go barefoot.
but the average person doesn't have foot fetishes
the average person does find female breasts sexual
http://careyourbreast.blogspot....ween-male.html
I brought up the universal thing to show maybe that it's not as social as some may think if separate cultures found the same thing taboo
another argument I read about is that nudity would just increase the already high amount of objectification towards women
That's true. But it doesn't have to be that way.
We don't find male and female breasts different from birth, though. Which is why female children normally don't give a crap about flashing the world. So it must be a taught behavior.
I wish it wasn't that way
my assumption as to why women are objectified can be explained in this piece:
http://www.abalook.com/journal/...ly-visual.html
definitely not at birth
that's because kids
regardless of gender
have identical chests
anatomy-wise, there's no difference until puberty hits
Plenty of other things have been seen as sexy and aren't now. I mean, ears are scientifically linked to arousal, which is why ear fondling is a thing. We've overcome so many things which have tied women to only sex have been overcome. What's one more hurdle?
Are men's and women's bodies not equal once puberty hits though?
they are equal
but different
in the beginning
the chest is equal and the same
it later stays equal but becomes different
ears?
I think they're still seen as sexy by both genders
but breasts are definitely more sexy
what things have been overcome?
objectification of women is higher now more than ever I would say
it's gotten worse
pornography industry is worth billions
and is on the rise
i
women being turned into sex slaves and being exploited is on the rise
women are trafficked more and more
in terms of education and work
we've made good progress
but in terms of things like objectification and exploitation
I don't think things are going very well in those categories
..........................................
"In The Beauty Myth, Naomi Wolf says,“ The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us... [D]uring the past decade, women breached the power structure; meanwhile, eating disorders rose exponentially and cosmetic surgery became the fastest-growing specialty... [P]ornography became the main media category, ahead of legitimate films and records combined, and thirty-three thousand American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal...More women have more money and power and scope and legal recognition than we have ever had before; but in terms of how we feel about ourselves physically, we may actually be worse off than our unliberated grandmothers."
No, they're not equal. One gender gets to do something that another cannot. One gender gets an opportunity that another doesn't. What about that is equal?
And as they become different, they become unequal.
I would say that too. But women can show their ankles, arms, legs, stomachs, basically their whole body now without being judged. Aside from their pubic area, butt, and breasts. That isn't how things used to be though.
Don't you think that if people were able to see real, normal bodies more often that body images would be very different? If everyone went naked for a month, don't you think that people would become more comfortable with their own bodies, as well as the bodies of others?
women can show their ankles and basically their whole body and be comfortable in their bodies
but that hasn't stopped objectification
I don't think being comfortable is what'll help
and clothes serve other purposes outside of modesty
if we went naked for a month
that's a lot of different discharges on seat, etc.
it's for hygiene and protection as well
I don't get those nude ranches
if it is that unfair
don't let men be topless either then
but don't go the other way
because showing more skin isn't gonna stop objectification
I feel like it'll just increase it
no matter how comfortable people are with their bodies
that's not stopping objectification
I think a lack of modesty on the part of all people is leading to more objectification
Yes. But it is socially acceptable for women to dress less modestly. There are fewer "private parts."
But mostly it's for decency. It's not like boobs will squirt everywhere if women don't wear shirts.
Either don't let men go triples or let women go topless. Either is equal.
I don't know. If sex is mysterious then I feel that it will be more healthy (I think that porn certainly plays a part in the unrealistic expectation of women. If all women are seen as what they are physically, I don't think that people will get false hopes.). <- hehe I sort of made bewbs
ah but socially acceptable does not stop objectification
some people even may say "YEAH WOMEN SHOULD GO TOPLESS" with ill intentions
not because they want equality
but just so they can have more to ogle
you're right about the squirting
and porn does play a part
studies have shown so
but I don't think seeing topless women would stop the false hopes because those false hopes are obtained through channels such as porn
to eliminate false hope
you'd have to eliminate the origin of the false hopes
looks more like a nose with nostrils ._.
Post is wrong. It is both a gender and an equality thing. Wunderscore is right. It is a cultural learned behavior. there have been many cultures in the past were breast where considered functional and not sexual appendages, in those cultures the breast is not covered. It was the christian missionaries that told African, Asian and Australian tribal cultures that "breasts" where naughty and need to be covered. It was the puritans in Europe that determined uncovered decolletage was inappropriate.
didn't they teach them to cover the bottom area too though?
for both genders
if they were being sexist or unequal
they wouldn't have taught the men to cover up as well
they taught all the people there to cover up
not just women
and even in tribes where women are topless today
the breasts are still seen as partially sexual
even if they're bare
so this is definitely a universal thing
that is not all learned
......................................
I think there's a reason why objectification/trafficking/porn is much more common than before
and I think it correlates with how much clothes people wear
I agree with your last statement at least.
but every culture and place I know has a difference between male and female dress
the coverage is different too
how is that inequality?
why can't they just be seen as differences without being unequal?
it's not as if covering your breasts stops your from being productive in society
doing so doesn't hinder you in any way whatsoever
you're not suddenly inferior for covering your boobs
it even protects you from outside objects
I have no idea how people can say covering themselves is oppressive
it is inequality because one gender is allowed to do something and the other is told that they can't.
Different is that I have boobs and a vag and a boy has a pen. Inequality is that we are allowed to do different things because of those differences.
okay I got another angle
breasts are a sign of sexual maturity
that's why it's universally classed as a private part
men's chest isn't a sign of sexual maturity
and neither for children
so that's why they don't have to cover their chests
theirs isn't a private part
so that also takes care of the patting chest thing I was talking about
private parts are covered for modesty
that goes for everyone regardless of gender
women just have the added boobs
but it's how we're made naturally
our boobs show sexual maturity
as the penis/vagina show sexual maturity
as in the changes they go through
so it isn't unequal
it'd be unequal if men were allowed to show their private parts and women weren't
but it's not like that
it's that no one can show their private parts
also
a women's chest is more prone to getting hurt
especially when not covered
no protection
also makes running
and walking down/up stairs hard
this sort of protection is not sensitive to men and children
they can bump chests with no problem
That does make more sense. But then why does a woman's pubic are have to be covered? Why are butts covered? Butts don't signify maturity. Really the only external change for women in regard to her hoo-ha is pubic hair, but that can be removed.
the hoo ha definitely needs to be covered because of squirting as well as protection
and it's visible when you sit cross legged and what not
or just sit without your legs closed
also
you can tell if the vagina is mature from the outside in that the lips appear more bigger and prominent
(the link at the end of this comment will show the drawing of how that is so)
and the vagina does go through change during puberty
http://eschooltoday.com/girls-a...s-puberty.html
the butt thing
I see that as protection too
even elementary kids will cover their butts
I would see it as a way to protect yourself from ease of access
you don't want to accidentally ram something up there
especially when running outside
sitting in the dirt with your anus exposed is a very bad idea
so I'll go with that
it's also serves as a gas/feces barrier
What if women clean up after themselves as needed?
No it's not. The labia are, but your actual vagina (which doesn't mature an awful lot) isn't and your uterus (which is the organ which matures) certainly isn't visible.
Yes, but most of it is internal. Boys' chests also go through some development: http://www.eschooltoday.com/boy...cent-boys.html
I don't know about you, but I ran around butt ass naked. As long as you don't shit yourself in public or something and clean up after yourself I don't see an issue. What about wearing things in public?
Should we have to protect ourselves from that? I doubt that something will accidentally ram itself up your butt.
If you bathe regularly and don't go out of your way to put dirt in your butt, what do you reckon the likelihood of being harmed is?
Not a very good one.
come on
you've seen the bathrooms
I don't think many women are ready to sit naked on buses and in public places
I think women would be more guarded about covering their bottom than their top
I'm talking about when kids sit down on the grass and dirt
it's not very safe
why are butts private parts?
I guess if a stranger touches a kid in the anus
it would also be considered sexual harassment
so that's one way to look at it
they get hair on their chest
but hair isn't really a private part
or seen as that sexual either
and the upper area of pubic hair that's above the vagina (part near the stomach)
I don't think that's the private part either
it's the actual vagina that's the private part
the pudental cleft is visible from the outside in the vagina
the drawing showed it as more prominent after puberty
I FOUND SOMETHING ELSE
breasts are a sign of sexual maturity
so that definitely shows that it's not learned that breasts are sexual
so it's not unequal because everyone is told to cover their private parts
not just women
and women have more private parts
but that's just how we're made
it's not about inequality
I consider my sexually mature male nipples private as well. I do not expose them to anyone other than my wife.
and yes the chest on a man changes as he matures sexually.
I looked it up
and it doesn't say the male chest is a sign of sexual maturity
and anatomically, the grown male chest is still the same as the chest of male and female children
"At Birth
Male and female breasts are essentially the same at birth. Both sexes feature a nipple and darker tissue surrounding it called an areola. There is no breast enlargement for either sex.
Female Puberty Changes
Female breasts begin to enlarge during puberty due to the production of the hormone estrogen. The breast structure which consists of fat, lobules (milk-producing glands), and connective tissue matures to enable the female to lactate or provide milk after giving birth.
Male Puberty Changes
Male breasts do not change at puberty. The basic anatomy remains the same and similar to a pre-pubescent female anatomy. Male breasts consist of connective tissue, fat and muscle, but the milk-producing lobules are usually absent. "
http://careyourbreast.blogspot....ween-male.html
after giving birth... nothing to do with sexuality. The breast are not sex organs, they are functional for milk production but not essential for reproduction.
I looked it up
and found that mammals such as humans, apes, primates, etc.
find round buttocks and breasts sexually appealing
that's not true of other animals
so I think that's the answer
it's not just our society then if primates also find the round buttocks and breasts sexually appealing
that's one of the reasons we cover those areas
so the whole thing about humans making breasts sexual is not true
we naturally view breasts as sexual
just as apes view breasts as sexual
So you are saying no women are attracted to shirtless me with nice physiques? Or that all men are attracted to all shirtless women?
Cause I think I have seen women swoon at the sight of a buff dude at the beach.
And do you think a bikini clad (vs. completely naked) women at the beach is any more or less stimulating to the average man?
http://www.abalook.com/journal/...ly-visual.html
sure women are attracted to the physical sight of men
but women are drastically more objectified than men are
(both men and women objectify women)
men are more influenced by such sights than women are influenced
men make up the majority when it comes to consuming porn
last question:
I dunno
I'd think they're both stimulating
I couldn't answer which is more stimulating
.........................................
Edit: I thought this was the other post about media and sexual abuse
.......................................
primates don't view male chests as sexually appealing
they do view female bosoms as sexually appealing
and buttocks of both genders are viewed as sexually appealing
Agreed - woman are more objectified in society.
I would think the a buff gorilla would have more receptive mating partners than a skinny-ass gorilla
the requirement for shirts on one sex and not the other is sexist.
If we all went nude there would be LESS objectification, not MORE. Requiring woman to wear specialized clothing is both a gender equality issue and adds to the objectification of women (they are objects to be cherished not persons to be equal with).
I read the direct opposite
women are more objectified when they are topless
it's not unequal because males are required to cover their bottom just like females are required to do so
as I said before
buttocks and breasts are sexually appealing
not just with humans
but all primates
it's not sexist just because the chest is more sexually appealing on females
that's just how it is naturally
the natural reaction to chests is different between genders globally for all primates
this is not something society taught humans
it's something all primates feel
the buff gorilla and buff men don't get objectified nearly as much even if they are half naked
when females are half naked
it'll just add to objectification
OK one more try...
Gorillas do not wear clothes
Gorillas do not objectify naked female gorillas
Humans wear clothes
Humans objectify naked female humans
therefore
it is the clothes, not the primate-ness that cause objectification.
Gorillas might be attracted to female gorillas with "nice boobs" but do not "objectify" them.
Humans objectify other humans because we (humans) are jerks.
we are definitely jerks
I'll agree with that
I just remembered that primates are jerks too
they have rape and all that
so I'm not sure
do they objectify their females?
I am not even sure I know what objectify means in this context
I don't think apes objectify
they don't think the same way we do
that's why we're bigger jerks
we add objectification to our list of being anuses
But they're secondary sex organs. This link shows some of the many secondary sex characteristics, none few of which are shunne in the way that breasts are: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/...characteristic
So we need to cover the things that signify that we're sexually mature?
Tht includes muscles, Adam's apples, bone structure, body hair, and our face? No. It's pretty much only breasts.
but you don't sexually harass/abuse someone by grabbing their adam's apple
or their arm pitt hair
it becomes sexual harassment when dealing with the butt/genitals/breasts
the butt doesn't show much maturity sexually
but both genders can be sexually harassed when their butt is concerned
those three categories are private areas
intimate areas
an adam's apple isn't a private part
and in school
when safety bear came in to teach us about what to do when you're molested
he said to tell an adult when someone touched you in the butt/genitals/breasts
those are the places people are sexually harassed
rapists don't assault sexually in other places
but they sexually assault the breasts/ genitals/ butt
Well I don't sexually harass anyone, to be fair.
Because that's how we've defined sexual harassment. That doesn't mean it's logical, fair, correct. It just means that's how it currently is.
But why are they private areas? It's not because they're the parts which signify sexual maturity, as I've shown.
Well it signifies sexual maturity. So why is a breast private and an Adam's apple not?
In school, we're also taught abstinence rather than safe sex. My point being that there's more to a situation than what we're taught in school.
yeah but safety bear goes to other events too
that's besides the point though
I don't sexually harass anyone either
I don't even grab anyone's adam's apple
I think if someone touches your breasts without consent
that it should stay harassment
I think that's an important law for protection
I've been thinking about societies like tribes where nudity is pretty normal
even there
you wouldn't want people touching your butt/breasts without permission
and if it's covered
it not only protects from outsides forces
but protects from ease of access too
that's one of the purposes of clothing
protection
and in terms of topless men
I think they should be less lenient about that
they enforce shirts in stores, schools, etc.
but I think they should enforce it on sidewalks too
and on the beach
Okay, great. Lovely. You have an opinion. Why?
I don't want touching me at all without my permission. If someone hugs my and I don't want to be hugged by them, I feel uncomfortable. Violated, even.
Since when does a shirt prevent someone from slapping a butt or honking a boob?
Why why why. An opinion without justification is nothing. It holds no value. It performs no change.
it easier to slip away when you have clothes on
and it hurts less
because breasts are more sexual than adam's apples universally
maybe it's all sexual
but with varying levels
maybe it's just a natural reaction
I think an ape wouldn't like it when you touch her breasts if she doesn't want you to
it probably has to deal with how sensitive breasts are
I looked it up
and found that mammals such as humans, apes, primates, etc.
find round buttocks and breasts sexually appealing
that's not true of other animals
so I think that's the answer
it's not just social then if primates also find the round buttocks and breasts sexually appealing
I conclude that society has not made breasts/butts sexual
we think of them sexually naturally
What?
Are they? Are you sure of this?
An ape probably wouldn't like it if you touched her foot if she didn't want to be touched. Know what else is pretty sensitive? Fingertips. Yet fingertips aren't sexual.
It could be. If every primate finds characteristic x attractive, it could still be a taught behavior.
it's a characteristic all primates share
so I think it's safe to say it's not taught by human societies
it's a characteristic primates have in common
you asked why is it sexual harassment?
and that's my explanation
it's not sexual harassment because we said so
and that's the social norm
breasts are viewed sexually with all primates
it's sexual harassment objectively
not just subjectively in that it's a random rule that we as society made up
that was being hinted at throughout this whole thread
it's not sexual harassment because society made it that way
when in fact
it's viewed that way by all primates
this is something that is not just universal for humans
but for all primates as well
I should say sexually sensitive
not just sensitive
that's what I meant though
primates don't universally view feet as sexual
so if one ape touched her feet
she'd be less bothered than if one ape touched her protruding breast
But it could be taught by mothers. Assuming that we, humans, and they, other primates, share a common ancestor, perhaps the mothers of enough young taught this behavior and it has been carried through to modern times.
Objectively? That's quite impossible. Or rather, improbable.
But we have, haven't we? Many primates see bigger males as more attractive. But many people don't like massive men. Yes, some do. But it's becoming increasingly popular to defy these gender roles. So we should be able to break the idea that breasts must be viewed sexually, too.
Also, this Harvard research pdf explains that breasts are likely seen as attractive because they show fat reserves: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe...s/nubility.pdf
In older times, this would mean that the woman would be able to provide nutrients steadily to her offspring. However, now that so many people are able to be gloriously plump, that's not really necessary.
"Because of the concentration of nerve endings in the sole and digits of the human foot, and possibly to the close proximity of the area of the brain dealing with tactile sensations from the feet and the area dealing with sensations from the genitals, the sensations produced by sucking or licking the feet can be pleasurable to some people."
if it is taught
and mothers were the ones who taught this
I'm assuming it was for the benefit and well being of her young
why would we want to unlearn something like that?
some people with the feet
it's almost all people with breasts
it's like comparing a foot fetish
it's not universal
also
you have to suck and lick
with breasts
mere touch is enough to create the sensations
I should say more objectively
than just objectively
I'm assuming bigger males are attractive for means of protection
if so
then that's still desirable today
some defy such
but it's still holds true that women are drastically more likely to be assaulted, raped, domestic violence, etc.
women still tend to be smaller in size
so having the bigger male stay attractive is still desirable and important I would say
yes
women can take care of themselves
but they're still assaulted/harmed more
the larger male should stay preferable for means of protection
and the same with breasts with sexual sensitivity
and protection
defying such does not seem to be beneficial
Because it's no longer necessary. Back then, having fat was advantageous in case of a food shortage. But that's much less likely to happen now.
Feet are very sensitive sexually. It's not just people with foot fetishes. A foot massage is very sensual. Perhaps more so than a back massage.
No you don't. Those were just the examples given.
No it's not. Let's take the fashion industry as an example. Find me 10 male models from respected companies that are bulky, big, strong not toned.
Should? What about with modern weaponry? A 7 ft tall man will still get mowed down by a 4 ft tall man with a gun.
No, not the same with breasts. We don't need fat reserves any more. With regular, caloric meals readily available to many, maybe even most, the need for excess fat is diminishing.
what about when both of them have the weapons?
and if it wasn't necessary
than women wouldn't be assaulted drastically more than men
the quote you gave said some people feel the sensations
it's not universally so
and availability of food
half the world lives in poverty
even in developed countries
some still struggle with food availability
also
the link you posted says that fat stores are still advantageous for ovulation and lactation
so we do need fat reserves even with people who have food availability
healthwise overall
we still need a certain amount of fat
Then size still has nothing to do with it. Reaction time and negotiating skills do.
What the hell are you talking about? Having fatty deposits on your boobs and butt?
Neither is seeing boobs as being sexual. I'm sure that not everyone thinks so.
Okay, but not to the extent that it used to be before relief organizations and grocery stores and fast food and convenience food.
Yes but not much. Not enough to make a woman with larger boobs a more desirable mate, biologically, than a woman with smaller boobs.
Yes but not enough that we are attracted to it to increase the likelihood of the survival of our species.
Obviously. I never said that we don't need fat. I said that we don't need to invest our sex in fat people in order to ensure reproduction. We can mate with most anyone we please and be successful at creating and raising offspring. Obviously there are exceptions, though.
even if fat isn't necessary
the breasts are still sexual though
universally sexual
and much more widespread than feet
even the link you posted said that it's erroneous to say that in societies where women are topless
that breasts aren't erotic
they are still seen as erotic in these places
I'm starting to think that this isn't a taught thing
that it's something that's instinctual
almost as instinctual as seeing the genitals as sexual
even in places women are normally topless
they still see it as erotic
Hands, feet, ears, body hair, bone structure, and other signs of maturity are considered attractive by more than a few people.
But other features are commonly erotic, and aren't shunned.
No, it's not. Little kids shower with their parents and think nothing of it. To them, breasts and vaginas and penises aren't sexual. It's just what people look like.
That contradicts what you said in the same comment.
not as common as the breasts
breasts and round buttocks are common across all primates
all that other stuff doesn't have nearly as strong of a link
and it is linked instinct wise
little kids play doctor and masturbate
also
just because they don't think it
doesn't mean they don't feel it
babies don't actively think they're hungry
but they still cry when they're hungry
it doesn't contradict
just saying that it's still considered sexual even in topless societies
you said previously that if we got used to breasts
that they wouldn't be sexual
that was an example of how that's not true
So far, nothing has proven that inything is instinct. From our discussion, I mean.
The same could be said for all the things I mentioned.
Do you know that for sure?
Oops I misread that part.
Anyway, I'm tired of this topic for now. Maybe we can resume this conversation at a later date?
yeah me too
we can try later
for the moment
we can agree to disagree
yeah. men are not allowed to take their pants in public too
so hella true
Breastfeeding in public should be legal.
as long as you're not exposed
the kid and blanket covers you anyways
It's not an issue, but it's still unfair. Men and women should both be able to choose whether or not they go out in public topless. What's the downside?
objectification
increase in sexual harassment
I think it's pretty cool that this is tied 13 for 13 right now
I am inclined to think that whoever developed that theory had trouble keeping his thoughts on research when the lab assistant bounced onto work.
goes back to your stereotype post, do we cover them because they are sexual or are they sexual because we cover them?
they're not sexual because we cover them
in tribes where women are topless, breasts are still seen as sexual
and other primates don't even wear clothes
and they find it sexual too
not just breasts though
ROUND BUTTOCKS TOO
AND GUESS WHAT?
BOTH GENDERS ARE REQUIRED TO COVER THEIR BUTTOCKS
........................................
AND MAYBE THE RESEARCHER WAS A FEMALE
AND THE LAB ASSISTANT WAS MALE
HOW ABOUT THEM APPLES?
HOW SEXIST IS IT TO ASSUME THAT THE RESEARCHER IS MALE
AND THE ASSISTANT IS FEMALE?
................................
sorry about the caps
Well I am not sure where you come from, or what research you have done but I see PLENTY of buttock on the beach - thongs are everywhere. It is not the buttock we cover, strictly speaking, it is the anus. Which I don't get either because that is not sexual either. But it is like a tiny little flower bud and so it should be seen as an adornment and shown off as a tiny decoration rather than something to hide, but I digress.
And I assume it was a man because only a man would make the crazy assumption that boobs give monkeys tiny boners. A female research would understand that it is the scent of the female that produces the erection, not the shape of the mammies. So there.
"little booby, lotta booby, little booty, lotta booty, no matter boy-will-be-boys."
GROSS
I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU USED A FLOWER BUD AS COMPARISON
CRAP COMES OUTTA THERE
and I think that was an unfair assumption
I am a female
and I made this post
didn't I?
the breasts don't give off hormones right?
so why do we primates love the breasts so much too?
yes it looks similar to buttocks
but primates are smart enough to know the difference between the behind and the befront
and the research wasn't on primate erections
it was based on the attention primates gave to certain body parts in a sexual manner I think
the scent of hormones is everywhere
on the skin too
Ears are sexy that's why so many girls cover them. Ankles are also sexy, that is why people wear socks. Those little booty-like socks are bikinis for the feet. and elbows - on my, don't get me started on elbows.
Primates don't give the same kind of attention to ears, etc.
and regardless
I cover my ears, etc. anyways
SO BOO YOU