Because as a baby we spend our time sucking on dem titties. Then one day we are pulled off and given a bottle instead and told nope no more titties for you. So we spend our remaining days try to get back something that was taken from us when we weren't ready. Also I am all for women running around shirtless, just saying.
That argument is kinda dumb down there. We are all humans no matter what sex we are or what race, we all have boobs or a penis. We women should have the same rights as men, just cause they have no "sacks of fat" on their chest should not mean they get to walk around topless, but for some reason people think that boobs are a sexual piece, they aren't!! they are for making milk for a baby its food for another human being i dont see what is so sexual about them, sacks of fat full of milk for a child, no not sexual at all. And if there has to be a sexual thing on the female body i would think its the vagina, It's the one part of the body meant for having sex, the clitoris is for pleasure, cant you see thats the sexual part down there not our boobs.
The vagina is reproductive, just like the breast and the penis. The fact that, as humans, we get pleasure from playing with the nipples or clitoris/penis does not make them something developed directly for pleasure, an erogenous zone, if you will. In fantastic lore, the erogenous zones of a Goblin are the knees and elbows, both males and females of the race are perceived as promiscuous with bared knees or elbows. Extraneous information? Maybe, maybe not. We do not need sexual pleasure to survive as a race, nor as a being. We do need sexual reproduction to survive. In other news, the breast was not always a symbol for pleasure, during the fifth century B.C. (the Peloponnesian War), the breasts were commonly bared. In the eighteenth century, the erogenous zone was the ankle.
So a man's chest isn't sexual either? Some women actually do get turned on by a man's pecs, but it's still socially acceptable for them to walk around shirtless.
Where did you get that they weren't required to reproduce? Society? If I recall correctly, breast milk is the only substance that a human can have for every meal, every day of their life and not need for more nutrition. This means that the milk contains all the nutrients needed by a human, not to mention the immune system bolstering. Formula can contain the nutrients a child needs, but cannot match the complexity or the needs of the infant as it grows.
Also, @Kissmysass, go back to feudal japan. http://fbgags.com/wp-content/uploads/so-i-became-a-cobra.jpg
@Nerdarecool1212. Male breasts can still produce milk if absolutely necessary. They may be vestigial for most intents and purposes, but they are still partly necessary for the reproduction process. Also, this: http://funsubstance.com/fun/92322/afro-h-my-god/
Yes, but what I meant was, you don't need breasts to make the baby. Yes they may be necessary after the baby is born. But right now, we're talking about breasts being used to help make the baby. You don't have to have boobs to get pregnant. You can get them removed if you wanted to and still have a baby. And women don't have to breast feed their children. There's formula for a reason.
I'm not denying any of that, just taking a mildly informative stand. You want to have a double mastectomy, you do that. You want to feed your baby with formula, you do that. I'm not talking about breasts being used to make a baby, I'm talking about the utility of the breast. Which seems to be the tangent this discussion has begun to address, amirite?
Ah, upon reflection I see where you could draw the conclusion you did. There is no, 'feeding process' after reproduction. The two processes seem to be lumped -- see what I did there? -- together. Reproduction, for humans is sex until the child is independent enough to fend for themselves. So, you may not need a breast to -make- a baby, but the use of them is part of the reproduction cycle.
No, I am -stating- that breasts are sexual parts of the body used in the cycle of reproduction. Society is the one implying that breasts should stay covered, at no point have I addressed the covered vs. uncovered argument. My first post was correcting a fallacy of erogenous zones being purely that. My second post was an attempt to make you and the others more knowledgeable on the reproductive cycle as a whole; furthermore, the third post was correcting some confusion you seem to have found in what I put down. Also, if you read the third post over again, I state that you can do what pleases you, be it cutting both your tits off, using formula... can you draw any further conclusions from the character I have hinted at there? Hm? You seem to be good at drawing conclusions... even if they are the wrong ones. Ah, found it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbq_1Wy70rE Was that one still too veiled for you?
Do you know (my random fact of the day) that it is legal in New York for women to be topless everywhere men can be topless? I've heard about a similar law in Ohio, but I can't imagine that state having that law lol.
I find it odd that she told the girl to mind her own damn business yet she posted this picture to social media. If she didn't want people to comment about her showing the "non-sexual" parts of her body, then why post it in the first place?
1
deleted
· 11 years ago
Yes that shows she doesn't know what she's talking :/
Seriously? After all that, you're still clueless? All she wanted to do was show off her grandpa's sweater and people made it about her boobs instead, so she retaliated.
I am not clueless at all. My point was simply this: if you post anything on the Internet or on social media, don't be surprised when people have an opinion because after all it is a public forum. And ironically enough, she did tell the girl who I would assume was, at the time of the post her friend on Facebook, to mind her own damn business.
1
·
Edited 11 years ago
deleted
· 11 years ago
Why am I getting downvoted? Her grandpa would've been happy seeing her like this huh?
Of course people are going to have an opinion on it, but that wasn't the point of the post which is why she got angry. And I think she meant "mind your own damn" business in relevance to her boobs, not to the overall post (which was about we grandfather's sweater).
It's pretty hard to make this argument bacause you can't just change everybody's mind about breasts. I'm a guy and I am attracted to breasts. There's no way it's not sexual to me
Probably going to get thumbed down for this but I'm just the one that doesn't really care what people think of me so here goes. No one should have a problem with a man being a man we are all sexual beings. Noticing an attractive person is not a crime. Knowing what u like is not a crime. If my man decides to stop thinking dirty I need a new man. Everyone brags to embrace being different I believe people should embrace being what we all are. Men are men if you're gay be gay enjoy men and their bodies and don't apologize for it. If you're straight and love women enjoy them and don't apologize for that either. If a man appreciates your body enjoy it embrace yourself. Own it.
Just see so much arguing about this subject. Lots of people being discredited for their comments. I think man or woman we all find different things attractive and we all have that right. Just don't understand why so much anger over it.
I'm not arguing with you, I was just expecting more for your comment and then it just kinda ended.
Of course people find different things attractive, but just because someone finds wrists to be sexy doesn't mean that it's necessary for people to cover up your wrists. Things like your vagina and penis are covered because it's sexual and they're used for sexual reproduction but boobs aren't really that way. They're used to supply babies with nourishment and while babies are products of the said sexual reproduction, they're not really sexual themselves. That's why I dislike that they're portrayed as sexual objects.
As for the anger, I think some people are just getting pissed at others' opinions and that shows through the comments.
I knew you wasn't trying to argue with me but thank you. I was talking about some of the other comments. I think everyone has taken it too personaly. I do agree with you and I felt like saying more in my comment but I thought I might have been sounding too preachy lol.
Well people are sexually attracted to legs, mid sections, faces, feet, etc, yet you don't see people ranting on about how those should be covered up.
If men aren't forced to constantly be wearing shirts because, then why should women? It should be their choice really
Exactly. Breasts aren't the only thing considered sexually attractive. So are six packs apparently but you don't see anyone losing their shit about guys showing those off.
If you were to go back a hundred years you would see people ranting about legs and midsections. In fact a lot of people today still think bikinis are immodest. Personally I do think that, in general, guys should keep their shirts on too.
But reality is that the female body is usually more arousing to a male than the male body is to a female. That's just how our brains evolved. We could either deny reality because it doesn't seem fair, or we could accept it and work with it.
Yes, I agree with you, also it's a little bit easier to tell if a guy is publicly aroused than it is to tell if a girl is, and I'm sure that might be an issue if girls can walk around with no shirt or bra
I don't really know what her intentions were on this post and it can be viewed both ways, however, breasts and other body parts are considered sexual and we can't just start saying that they aren't when that is what they are usually looked as/used for. Example: when girls wear low cut shirts to show off their breast. We can't double standard these things-either they aren't or they're not.
I'm sorry but boobs are a sexual piece what do you call the vagina a piece of skin that allowes a woman to let go of her urine seriously, boobs can cause a man to get turned on therefore making it a sexual body part live with it. I'm sure your grandad would agree wear a god damn shirt and stop making excuses for why its right to look slutty.
Someone want to explain that downvote? They don't.. What Jiffy said above implied they do. I've had friends (female friends) stupid enough to think that they do, so I felt the need to correct this.
When you sexualize a woman's body, you are saying it is inherently sexual, and needs to be covered up to avoid shame and attention. You are taking away all responsibility from those who act inappropriately towards girls/women. Men are strong enough to know women's bodies are not objects for their judgment or looking pleasure- when a man says a girl is dressing "slutty" or "looks like a whore" you are saying more about your own lack of maturity and control.
Or they that woman, well lets not call them woman these are girls who just want attention because that is exactly what it brings instead what we mean is that you show lack of respect for yourself, knowing society dressing like that brings attention of boys not men, and a man does not a woman who willing shows half her body as some girls do even in the cold or for a camera for likes as society does today its not a lack of maturity on our part only, but on both sides
How you react to people's looks, either the way they dress or how you perceive them, is 100% on you. No man is called a slut or who're for posting pictures of him working out topless or running around in the beach- yet girls are "asking for it" and "seeking attention?" These are really manipulative double standards people swallow and regurgitate without thinking.
And I don't think downvoting people is necessary, these conversations are important to have. It's good to challenge what you think and hear new perspectives.
When a guy takes a topless photo at the gym usually he is considered showing off or a douche even without knowing him
Same goes for the way this new generation dresses for males they are considered hoodrats and uneducated, at first glance it what it looks like but without knowing them and everyone judges in the open or to them selves its human nature
Also it is true that it is a girls choice to decide how to dress, as expected is for society to have self control and for you not to get harassed, but that isnnot a world we live in both genders do wrong one way or another and both critize each gender
There is no way in controlling it is all a matter of saying it out in the open or keeping it to yourself which is what many should do, but humans will be humans
Which then again refers back tp your statement about maturity and control
Exactly! A man is just showing off, right? Just a douche. But a woman and her clothing makes her sexual, it makes her a target. To call her a slut and sexualize what she is wearing is in essence saying she deserves what happens to her. If she is harassed, if she is molested, if she is raped... well, look at her cleavage! Look at that short skirt! What was she expecting, dressing like that? Which takes away completely the responsibility of the one who acted on her. Boys are just just showing off, the worst they can expect is to be called a poser, a douche. A woman can be brutally attacked and have it justified. There is no comparison.
I wasn't saying guys who showoff isn't right either on the contrary. But this goes off my original point a womans breast will give a normal strait man an erection anyone who will say no to this, is lying to themselves. No this has nothing to do with what the social norm is and no it has nothing to do with religion because in the old roman times if anything breasts were much less of an indecent thing. So yes it is a sexual body part. and to the vagina part i have no idea how it works really im a guy and ive never looked into that kind of stuff. I'm just saying if it causes arousal witch it does then i consider it as a sexual part of the body.
It only causes arousal because you're socialized to think it should. Cultures where women go topless all the time and breasts are seen as just food for babies don't have this issue. (Think of tribes in Africa that remain traditional.)
And this isn't an excuse. You have a brain. You can recognize that society is full of shit and de-program yourself.
Saying that a body, or body parts, male or female, are "sexual" is a completely different thing from saying that sexuality is shameful. Genitals are sexual because they're the tools of reproduction. All the other stuff - good, bad, ugly, sinful - is social.
In a world where the power has been so completely entrenched in masculinity for so long, sexuality has been a means of female empowerment because it's something men have been willing to pay a high price for. Women objectify themselves often enough (and men are sexualised enough, and often enough, by women), to muddy this whole argument. It's not nearly that clear cut anymore. The point is that we're all responsible for the decisions we make, and shifting blame around is refusing to look the real issues in the eye.
Windscryer you are the one who has been brainwashed. Brainwashed by the sea of feminist ramblings on tumblr. You are not intelligent, you are just a child. To get to the point, whether you like the truth or not, breasts are highly sexual. You know what else is sexual, hips. These are classed as secondary sexual characteristics designed to signal to a male that they are indeed fertile, post-pubertal and capable of bearing a child. The higher the levels of oestrogen a female has, the greater the difference between her hip size and waist size; also the larger her breasts. This is why large breasted women are historically viewed as more attractive, because it signifies greater ability to produce healthy offspring and the ability to breatsfeed them for at least a year after birth. Breasts became sexual indicators when apes evolved to bipedal (two-legged) locomotion since the bottom was no longer so much on display, whereas the breasts were on display. Science beats bullshit.
Guys, let's be civil and mature about this. It's immature to call someone a child just because they don't agree with you. It's okay to have a debate, but let's not resort to name calling. That just leads to more trouble.
Did you read where sexual in the context of saying they were sexualizing the woman for what she was wearing, i.e. that she was a "slut" for exposing skin? Because that paragraph you wrote isn't exactly topical. But it is in the same general theme of people trying to justify why it is okay to sexualize women's bodies (("It's science! Cavemen did it!")) rather than start to look to what society is teaching men and women about the acceptance of shaming and bigotry. So thanks for that example.
Guest, you undermine the strength of your argument when you go all ad hominem like that. There's truth in what you say but if your opening is "you're a fucking idiot because .." then you've already turned your audience deaf to any reason you might have to offer.
And besides, for all the biology, denying that the sexualisation of breasts/hips/lips/postures/attitudes etc has a social element makes you flatly wrong anyway. It's both. It's always both.
No, it's good. Even though I disagree with many points on here, I'm glad to see people standing up to each other and expressing their opinions (even though many are prejudicial and discriminatory).
Also, breast size has nothing to do with the amount of milk a mother can produce. The size of a woman's breasts have to do with the amount of fatty tissue they contain, but the said fatty tissue has nothing to do with the quantity (or quality) of the breast milk. A woman with small breasts can supply her child just as well as a woman with large breasts can. It is very rare for a woman's body to be unable to produce the amount of milk a child needs/wants.
Also *pulls off shirt*
LET ME EXERCISE MY GODDAMN RIGHT TO BE SHIRTLESS!
Also, @Kissmysass, go back to feudal japan. http://fbgags.com/wp-content/uploads/so-i-became-a-cobra.jpg
Ah, upon reflection I see where you could draw the conclusion you did. There is no, 'feeding process' after reproduction. The two processes seem to be lumped -- see what I did there? -- together. Reproduction, for humans is sex until the child is independent enough to fend for themselves. So, you may not need a breast to -make- a baby, but the use of them is part of the reproduction cycle.
Me: *lifts up shirt while tits flap around wildly* NO!
Of course people find different things attractive, but just because someone finds wrists to be sexy doesn't mean that it's necessary for people to cover up your wrists. Things like your vagina and penis are covered because it's sexual and they're used for sexual reproduction but boobs aren't really that way. They're used to supply babies with nourishment and while babies are products of the said sexual reproduction, they're not really sexual themselves. That's why I dislike that they're portrayed as sexual objects.
As for the anger, I think some people are just getting pissed at others' opinions and that shows through the comments.
If men aren't forced to constantly be wearing shirts because, then why should women? It should be their choice really
But reality is that the female body is usually more arousing to a male than the male body is to a female. That's just how our brains evolved. We could either deny reality because it doesn't seem fair, or we could accept it and work with it.
Same goes for the way this new generation dresses for males they are considered hoodrats and uneducated, at first glance it what it looks like but without knowing them and everyone judges in the open or to them selves its human nature
There is no way in controlling it is all a matter of saying it out in the open or keeping it to yourself which is what many should do, but humans will be humans
Which then again refers back tp your statement about maturity and control
And this isn't an excuse. You have a brain. You can recognize that society is full of shit and de-program yourself.
In a world where the power has been so completely entrenched in masculinity for so long, sexuality has been a means of female empowerment because it's something men have been willing to pay a high price for. Women objectify themselves often enough (and men are sexualised enough, and often enough, by women), to muddy this whole argument. It's not nearly that clear cut anymore. The point is that we're all responsible for the decisions we make, and shifting blame around is refusing to look the real issues in the eye.
You know what? I don't care. You win. I'm gone.
Peace out, awesome people of FunSubstance.
Guest, you can take your boobs and hips and go fuck yourself with them.
And besides, for all the biology, denying that the sexualisation of breasts/hips/lips/postures/attitudes etc has a social element makes you flatly wrong anyway. It's both. It's always both.
Also, breast size has nothing to do with the amount of milk a mother can produce. The size of a woman's breasts have to do with the amount of fatty tissue they contain, but the said fatty tissue has nothing to do with the quantity (or quality) of the breast milk. A woman with small breasts can supply her child just as well as a woman with large breasts can. It is very rare for a woman's body to be unable to produce the amount of milk a child needs/wants.