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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Social construct I think where I'm from guys where lungis which sorta look like skirts http://www.lungi425.com/images/home_lungicollage2.gif 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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

//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?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

but the average person doesn't have foot fetishes the average person does find female breasts sexual http://careyourbreast.blogspot.com/2009/11/what-are-differences-between-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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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/2010/11/19/sexual-arousal-males-are-massively-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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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 ._.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I agree with your last statement at least.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

**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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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-and-puberty/physical-changes-in-girls-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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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/boys-and-puberty/pysical-changes-in-adolescent-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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I consider my sexually mature male nipples private as well. I do not expose them to anyone other than my wife. http://data.amirite.net/user_images/525c05df96fef.jpg

by Anonymous 11 years ago

and yes the chest on a man changes as he matures sexually.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.com/2009/11/what-are-differences-between-male.html

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

http://www.abalook.com/journal/2010/11/19/sexual-arousal-males-are-massively-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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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).

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

we are definitely jerks I'll agree with that

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I just remembered that primates are jerks too they have rape and all that so I'm not sure do they objectify their females?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am not even sure I know what objectify means in this context

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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/Secondary_sex_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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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-lab/acrobatfiles/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."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

yeah me too we can try later for the moment we can agree to disagree

by Anonymous 11 years ago

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?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

objectification increase in sexual harassment

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Breastfeeding in public should be legal.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

as long as you're not exposed the kid and blanket covers you anyways

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think it's pretty cool that this is tied 13 for 13 right now

by Anonymous 11 years ago

yeah. men are not allowed to take their pants in public too

by Anonymous 11 years ago

so hella true

by Anonymous 11 years ago