can't have boobs be a babies meal and benefit from them also being used/presented as sexual objects. Cover up unless in private, everyone's husbands and sons are not viewing that as nature!!! Have some modesty at some point in this downward spiralling society. Cleavage is out of control....why wear clothes at all....?
14 comments
There is no historical precedence for women being forced to cover their chests and men being allowed to go topfree. Societies either allowed or denied that freedom to both sexes.
At least, not until the 1930s in most western countries. Men fought for, and won, the right to take off their shirts. Women instead fought for, and won, the right to vote. Women didn't seriously try to fight for that right until the 1960s, and were only successful in the contexts of beaches in some European countries - because the 1930s had already set a global standard. Between the 1930s and 1960s, "primitive" and "lesser" societies had to be forced to adopt that standard "for their own good". Women's chests were now considered inherently sexual, but men's weren't.
Today, even if you accept the idea that women's chests are inherently sexual (and not everyone does) the current version of those double standards is ridiculous; the one part of the breast you can't show is the nipple/aureola area, which is also the one part which looks exactly the same on a typical male chest, just bigger on the average.
why wear clothes at all....?
I oddly agree with the first sentence...I think...its grammar is terrible.
I think I just fall into a different category. A woman's breasts have obvious purpose, which is to feed babies. Sexual nature is secondary. Guess which should take priority?
For warmth and estetic purposes, otherwise no need.
@The Crimson Ghost
Hey, flat chicks get married too, sometimes even happily. :P
@Doubting Thomas
Very true. That reminds me of a running thing throughout Piers Anthony's "Xanth" series of fantasy novels. (I know I keep referencing that, but it's like my favorite thing ever...lol). The thing being, the sight of an attractive woman in her panties has a magical power over men in the land of Xanth, causes them to "freak out", as he puts it...while if the same man saw the same woman naked, he'd enjoy it for sure, but no magical freak-out would ensue.
I think the point of that whole thing was something along the lines of what you just said. It only makes something seem more "obscene" if you always have to cover it up, censor it, stick a warning label on it, etc.
“can't have boobs be a babies meal and benefit from them also being used/presented as sexual objects”
“ Cover up unless in private, everyone's husbands and sons are not viewing that as nature!!!”
“ Have some modesty at some point in this downward spiralling society”
"Cleavage is out of control....why wear clothes at all....?”
I know this is far from the point but if you try to conflate food with sex objects that must be hidden say goodbye to everything from any kind of cooking oil, to honey, to chocolate, to peanut butter, to pineapple, and a long list of long and thick vegetables.
Am I really some kind of freak that I can look at a beautiful woman and think “yeah I’d like a session in the sheets with her… Well, now that I know I’m gawking I should really stop and get on with my day” and not be absolutely crippled by a hormonal response or instantly turned into some kind of deranged predator even if she’s got her boobs out or her ass in my face?
I don’t think I’m asexual so really is it that damned hard?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
