{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by DMMetalaane:
11/21/2014 5:07:02 AM
38
I am a feminist.
But even I find that notion stupid, unless you're in a nudist community; then obviously it'd make sense.
Breasts are a sexual organ and ergo it is biologically natural for other people to generally be attracted to breasts.
And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have to put up with being aroused every time I'd go outside on a hot day. It'd just be distracting and annoying.
I don't believe it to be a double standard either as people without breasts...simply don't have breasts. Simple as that. Double standards only exist when the two subjects in question are on an equal footing. The fact here, is that people have different bodies.
But that said, personally I'd prefer if both males and females kept their shirts on in public.
English
-
Tits or gtfo
-
[quote]Breasts are a sexual organ[/quote] The term I think you are looking for is [i]erogenous zone[/i]. And I would like the point out that society portrays male chest muscles as the "pillar of manliness" and sexually attractive.
-
Goddammit, the feminist is right. Never thought I'd say that.
-
[quote]breasts are a sexual organ[/quote] Good game we have a 12 year old here.
-
Idiot they aren't for looking at
-
Feminist being right! What has happened to the world. I BLAME OBAMA!
-
I blame you
-
I blame you twice.
-
We blame Obama together ok?
-
I almost stopped at Feminist but...Yeah you're right(first time saying that to a Feminist)
-
Stopped at feminist since all you people is sprout male hating nonsense and other garbage
-
Now that username scares me.
-
Your username scares me.
-
3spooky5you m9?
-
[quote]And I don't know about you, but I'd rather not have to put up with being aroused every time I'd go outside on a hot day. It'd just be distracting and annoying.[/quote] Do you propose making yoga pants/leggings illegal on the same grounds..? Or tight shirts? Some people are aroused by feet, but open toed sandals are legal in public. Genitalia are the only parts which should be considered indecent to expose and breasts don't count as such. Either that or it should be illegal for both genders to show their breasts.
-
I see your point. To answer... 1. That's a gray area and is open to interpretation. Being a libertarian, I believe gray areas should be given the OK instead of the no. 2. Still a gray area. The cause of a foot fetish in a person is technically a defect, and I think it'd be awful silly of society to make sandals or being barefoot illegal because a fraction of society has their brains wired different than normal. 3. If you're trying to equate breasts to feet because neither are genitalia, I can understand that and it's a logical comparison. Unfortunately, ancient civilization memetics sexualized the breast and it is now, for lack of better description, locked into Human evolution as being an object of sexuality. Seemingly different from feet, as attraction to feet is caused by a minor miswiring of the brain's sexual recongition. I can tell you that if breasts were in the same category of feet, then I'd say it'd be just fine for women to go topless. 'Sides, as a feminist, I know how the [i]stupid[/i] women and feminists would react if it were legal. They'd expect men wouldn't give them stares and then bitch about it. That is a stupid expectation. No doubt some women would be attracted too, and then they'd be fine with that. They're crazy, man.
-
So it's ok for ancient traditions to dictate laws, but not "miswirings" which are biologically not humanity's fault at all? Do you realize that your reasoning makes zero sense? By that logic slavery is ok in the modern world because ancient civilizations taught us that it's ok to enslave others since they used slave labor all the time. Breasts are not genitalia. Just because some are aroused by them doesn't mean they absolutely need to be covered. Women who don't care should go topless and men who are aroused would simply have to control their urges just like those who find women wearing leggings attractive have to control theirs.
-
There is a difference between evolution and tradition. The concept that breasts are attractive is basically as ubiquitous as walking upright on our feet. Once upon a time we lumbered like apes. Once upon a time we WERE apes. Once upon a time, breasts were a simple body part and that was that. Those times have passed, for better or worse.
-
[quote]Once upon a time we WERE apes.[/quote] Aaaaaand I'm done trying to read your argument -_-" *face desk*
-
According to you, humans didn't evolve to have breasts as something they are hardwired to be sexually attracted to. You said earlier that ancient civilizations started that. Again, by that logic, since ancient civilizations started slavery and discriminating based on skin color (something which quite a few people still do inherently in their lives), we should still allow it. Or, if you want to play the biological card, then feet being the result of a "miswiring" in people's brains, and a LOT of people's brains mind you, then open toed sandals/being barefoot in public should be illegal. It's the way some people have simply been born and they can't control it. Either reason you have given has flawed logic which states that more than breasts should be covered. Overall, the very idea that something which arouses others should be hidden is quite foolish, especially with the amount of fetishes out there.
-
Can we have a discussion without immediately shoving in strawmen into the mix?
-
[quote]Unfortunately, ancient civilization memetics sexualized the breast and it is now, for lack of better description, locked into Human evolution as being an object of sexuality. Seemingly different from feet, as attraction to feet is caused by a minor miswiring of the brain's sexual recongition. [/quote] [quote]Can we have a discussion without immediately shoving in strawmen into the mix?[/quote] These are your exact words. It's ok for feet to be shown because it's something hardwired into the brain and it's ok for "ancient traditions" to carry on because they've been going on so long it's practically evolution. Well, as I've pointed out, slavery/discrimination was started by ancient traditions and carries on to this day, and "hardwiring", especially one shared by so many people, is something people can't do anything about and will have to walk around aroused by the things their brain is hard wired to see as attractive. I fail to see any difference between breasts and these examples of yours. I'm not making a straw-man, I'm showing you the logical outcomes of your mindset. There should be nothing wrong with women being topless if they so choose. If men can already control themselves when they see a girl in tight leggings/shirts which leave nothing to the imagination, [I]and[/I] it's legal for a guy to walk around topless when a fat guy can have bigger breasts than a woman, there's no logical reason whatsoever from [I]any[/I] angle to keep women made to wear tops.
-
It was a joke. I thought that was quite obvious. :/
-
*takes off shirt* Does this count?
-
Edited by Overlord2009: 11/21/2014 11:01:16 AMBreasts are in no way a sexual organ, what gave you that idea? Our society has sexulized them beyond their natural appeal.
