RE: Nipple Bigotry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

petdave -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 7:13:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
From this analogy, one might say that men have toy guns of chests. 


As a male, i think i'm insulted, but i'm a little too confused to be sure [&:]



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 7:16:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Wow, CL, beth's comments must have hit close to home to generate such a reaction.


Hardly.  There's little more insulting than someone pinning a false view to you.  As I said to you in Post 29, before any of this happened, "I will not insult you as to pose that I know your specific reasons."

It is one thing to disagree with someone's view.  It's another to blantantly attribute false views to them.  You must understand you have lost my respect in failing to legitimately recognize another's argument in the interest of insulting them.  While I doubt you would care, as such individuals typically seek self-gratification over truth, I must tell you that this is disgusting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Since people aren't born with guns in their hands or on their chests - I can't accept the analogy.


Actually, being born with a particular gun would have made the analogy more concrete.  So assume people are born with guns and rerun it in your head.

The point is both strong and valid.  You could have a case, if you were actually interested in being honest, but I doubt this now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

"Goods" is another word for commodity.


"Goods" was a joke; the context should be incredibly clear, as I've said it over and over again.  It means "sexual organs".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Reading all of your posts on the subject, I'm not sure what your objection is. Perhaps you can be clearer. Try not to take the opposing view as attacks. They aren't. Nor, similar to bare breasts on men or woman, are they vulgar.


Opposing views are fine.  What she did- and you seem to support- is accusing me of carrying a different view than I do.  This is the insult I'm referring to.

If you're honestly unable to see my point, you may say so.  Though, frankly, I'm offended- particularly shocked you went along with beth's accusations.  Maybe, one day, you'll understand why doing such a thing causes one to lose so much respect.



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 7:18:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
From this analogy, one might say that men have toy guns of chests. 


As a male, i think i'm insulted, but i'm a little too confused to be sure [&:]


Hah, yeah.  It's a bit easy to read into analogies too far.  But, one must admit, male chests serve relatively little purpose in contrast to female chests.  At the same time, one may be unable to help but admire the value of such a chest, even in relatively slim purpose, being able to keep in one's own heart.

PS-  I know you were kidding, btw.  My humor can just be very dry.  ;)



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 7:25:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Invictus754
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

It's already the accepted status-quo: men and women both can't display sexual organs in public.

This statement shows how little you have traveled the world. 
You appear to be a bigger boob then the ones women have to cover.


Now, see?  This is the sort of insult that, while being an insult, doesn't misrepresent another's point of view.  While I can't claim to respect Invictus, at least he's not being a blantant liar.  (Excuse me for using you as an example, Invictus.)

In any case, in response to this, we're talking about America and its general laws.  Not about another country nor nude beaches in this one nor any other location nor special exception.  Try to keep it in context.  ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Invictus754
quote:


I'd ask you to consider:
-A man with a gun in his hand can not point it at someone and pull the trigger.
-A man with a toy gun in his hands can point it at someone and pull the trigger.


I DARE you to point a toy gun at a police officer in broad daylight, let alone after dark.  You'd have lead poisoning so quickly you wouldn't have time to scream "It's a TOY!"
 
Puritan ethics in the US are still alive and well.


Again, this is taking the analogy too far.  You see, the point of an analogy is to get an idea across- not to serve as a perfect representation at all conceivable points.  Such as, if one says, "A car is faster than a person like a hare is faster than a turtle", what about when that hare sees a juicy carrot?   It doesn't make the analogy invalid- you're just trying to use it in a way it wasn't meant to be.

I'd encourage you to consider what an analogy might be and the functions and usages of such.



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 7:34:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Women happen to have sexual organs in their chests. 


Can you the site the source from which you make this statement? I own several dictionary's and did an online search and every source stated that breasts were milk-producing organs, not sexual organs and that men's breasts were, typically rudimentary. That doesn't mean that breasts can't be sexual or used for sexual practices.. but then, so can hands, feet, earlobs etc. Being used for something other than nature intended.. (which was the feeding of our young) doesn't mean they are sexual organs anymore than your elbow is a sexual organ just because you may get off by rubbing it.


I feel it's a rather straight-forward term.  I think you may be confusing "sex organs" with "sexual organs"?  ("Sex organs" is a term that typically refers to genitials and such, where as "sexual organs" are organs, or body tissue that serve a purpose, that are sexual, or of or related to gender.)



Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 8:25:57 PM)

you said:
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

"I think you're looking for women's chests to be able to be bare.  To be honest, I do not think this is a matter of equality"


and:

quote:

"The bit about the breasts bugs me.  It seems like it's an all-or-nothing deal, but it's so much easier to say to the simple minded, "We're going for equality, man!  Boobs, man!"  And while such stands as a pursausive argument, I find it to be a distastefully deceptive one."


these two quotes are what this slave was referring to when she made the statement "your views".  anything else was an assumption on your part of this slave's views, so right back 'atcha on your feigned insult.
 
those two quotes are directly in line with the opinions of those who want to control and use a woman's breasts as a commodity...i.e., the aforementioned religious right and those with a vested interest in generating income through female exploitation of breasts therefore directly invested in keeping them covered as socially acceptable.



bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 8:28:58 PM)

It's legal in NY for a woman to go topless. I have a female friend who often ride her bike topless including nipple chains. She even pulls into the fast food drive through and has been doing so for quite a few years now.

I don't know how NY got this law passed, but it might be worth looking into.

I think there is also a woman in a law suit at the moment, because not all the cops are aware that it's legal and she was wrongfully arrested.

~Big



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 8:33:14 PM)

Gah.  Then you've misunderstood and missed my point entirely.  I'm saying that, to the morality of the current law, breasts are private parts- sexual organs- like genitals.  It's not that they're on women, or that they're women's chests, or any bit of property- it's just that they're sexual parts of a human's body.  I'm not even sure where you get the commodity part from.



michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 8:38:14 PM)

here's what i found when i looked that up:

http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2007/03/support-topless-women.html



Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 8:41:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I'm not even sure where you get the commodity part from.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

"Goods" is another word for commodity.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord: "Goods" was a joke; the context should be incredibly clear, as I've said it over and over again.  It means "sexual organs".


Now either you do "get" the commodity reference and its a "joke" or you don't and are "not even sure..." which quote - both yours - is your truth, Lord?



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 8:48:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I'm not even sure where you get the commodity part from.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

"Goods" is another word for commodity.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord: "Goods" was a joke; the context should be incredibly clear, as I've said it over and over again.  It means "sexual organs".


Now either you do "get" the commodity reference and its a "joke" or you don't and are "not even sure..." which quote - both yours - is your truth, Lord?


Calling boobs "goods" is a joke- which I can see how you related to commedities.  What I do not see is how you think that classifying breasts as sexual organs with genitials makes them commedities.  Do explain.



BitaTruble -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 9:16:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Women happen to have sexual organs in their chests. 


Can you the site the source from which you make this statement? I own several dictionary's and did an online search and every source stated that breasts were milk-producing organs, not sexual organs and that men's breasts were, typically rudimentary. That doesn't mean that breasts can't be sexual or used for sexual practices.. but then, so can hands, feet, earlobs etc. Being used for something other than nature intended.. (which was the feeding of our young) doesn't mean they are sexual organs anymore than your elbow is a sexual organ just because you may get off by rubbing it.


I feel it's a rather straight-forward term.  I think you may be confusing "sex organs" with "sexual organs"?  ("Sex organs" is a term that typically refers to genitials and such, where as "sexual organs" are organs, or body tissue that serve a purpose, that are sexual, or of or related to gender.)


I do agree that one of us is confused. I'm 47 years old and in my entire life I have never, once, heard breasts refered to as 'sexual organs'. It's not a common term at all in my universe, nor in any of my dictionary's or encyclopedias, hence the reason for my question.

To sum things up, you have no source and that's all I wanted to know.

Celeste



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 9:21:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

I do agree that one of us is confused. I'm 47 years old and in my entire life I have never, once, heard breasts refered to as 'sexual organs'. It's not a common term at all in my universe, nor in any of my dictionary's or encyclopedias, hence the reason for my question.


.."sexual" is an adjective, and "organs" is a noun.  It's like "red cars".. I don't need a source to talk about "red cars"..  I don't know what you were expecting.

Breasts are sexual organs, just like  red Ford Explorers are a red cars.  You don't need a book to tell you it.  Still, if you feel you need one, check the dictionary for the words "sexual" (adjective) and "organ" (noun).  It'll help you.

PS-  If it makes it easier for you, you can think of "sexual organs" as "naughty parts".  You might find some parenting book using that term.. might help you?



bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 9:24:16 PM)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nudism4.htm

During the reign of Queen Victoria, a period of sexual repression began which spread throughout much of the English-speaking world. At the height of the Victorian Era, it was common to cover all legs, even those of pianos and tables, in order to prevent sexual arousal. Bathing suits at the time covered almost the entire bodies of both men and women. Then, as now, much of society considered nudity and sexual arousal to be synonymous.





[image]http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif[/image]

1930's: On one particularly hot summer, thousands of men on Long Island NY disobeyed the law and went topless. The law was changed in 1936 to decriminalize toplessness among men.
 
I don't see the difference from the above and what Beth is trying to accomplish.
As previously stated, there are both women AND men enjoy sexual stimulation of the breast and there are both sexes who don't.
 
It's all perspective as to how you view it. I would rather see both sexes be able to bare the upper half of their bodies. It gets friggin HOT out there in the summer.
Commodity thing: If it becomes common place, as Beth stated, lots of magazine are going to loose sales. Not all of them, but I'm sure they don't want any of their sales to drop.
 
I don't feel that my guests are going to become sexually arouse any longer if I don't cover up my pianos legs.
If it goes back to us all covering up again..hey...I'm heading straight to Hef's house with loads of pictures of this here pianos partially covered up legs with a bit of the curve showing through a slit in the fabric. Maybe another of the piano leg in some sexy lacy number. That'll be HAWT. I'm gonna be rich!
 
It's all perspective.
 
~Big
 



Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 9:27:38 PM)

quote:

What I do not see is how you think that classifying breasts as sexual organs with genitials makes them commedities.  Do explain.
I classified breasts as "sexual organs"? Ahhhhh, I don't think so. You own that position my friend.

As to the commodity point it's pretty simple. People currently pay to go into clubs, people currently buy magazines. Okay, maybe you just read the articles. However for the general magazine buying public seeing naked female breasts, and their nipples, currently taboo to be shown freely, helps in the marketing. Should seeing female breasts become common, it discounts the commodity to those currently exploiting it, and selling it. 

Clear?



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 9:34:16 PM)

I agree it's prospective.  I even agree that showing breasts should be legalized.  However, I'm a firm proponent of understanding the view of others- including those not represented here.  I feel that this thread has firmly misrepresented the idealogy of those who created these laws.  While I do not accept the premises of their idealogy, it is important to understand in addressing any possible changes to such laws.

I had felt beth refused to recognize the ideals in the laws- instead, she attributed more easily frowned-upon idealogy.  To me, it appears she attempted to frame them for believing in things wrongly.  Then she did the same to me- accusing me of something I don't even believe in, completely missing that I was only trying to show the prospective of other parties.  I'm concluding that, while she may have the beginnings of a point herself, she has utterly failed to recongize the point of views of others, and has shown hostility at even the notion that the others might have a legitimate point of view.



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 9:40:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

What I do not see is how you think that classifying breasts as sexual organs with genitials makes them commedities.  Do explain.
I classified breasts as "sexual organs"? Ahhhhh, I don't think so. You own that position my friend.


Yes.. that's exactly what I said..  You're saying I think of breasts as commedities.. so I'm asking how does classifying them as sexual organs (which is true, by definition) make them commedities?

Gah.  This is very basic stuff.  Straight-forward.  How are you not getting this the first time?  Excuse the rudeness, but I feel as though I'm beating my head against the wall trying to get even basic points across.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

As to the commodity point it's pretty simple. People currently pay to go into clubs, people currently buy magazines. Okay, maybe you just read the articles.


You see?  This is where you imply, yet again, that I buy dirty magizines.  You're accusing someone of something they simply don't do.  Don't get me wrong- I'm not ashamed of the idea of buying such magizines, but I'm annoyed with the fact you have no problem lying just to look better.  That's the part that's annoying me.  Just be honset, jeeze.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

However for the general magazine buying public seeing naked female breasts, and their nipples, currently taboo to be shown freely, helps in the marketing. Should seeing female breasts become common, it discounts the commodity to those currently exploiting it, and selling it. 

Clear?


Yes, it's clear.  That you think clothing is a conspiracy to keep the porn industry alive?  Com'n now.  That's worse than farglebargle's theories about Bush masterminding every thing that happens in the world in his bid for global dominance.  You're suggesting that politicans, when considering if women should walk around naked or not, consider, "Why, people could see boobs without buying magizines?!   Horrible!"  How can you even believe something so silly?



bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 10:06:13 PM)

I do follow Beths' view and I'm not really sure I actually understand the others view, or the view you're trying to present for them.
The only reason that breast are viewed as a sexual object is because the public at large have been brainwashed into thinking they are, just as in the case of the piano and table legs.

Men of the past, (after we actually went back to wearing all these clothes, 'cause there sure was alot of nude things going on prior to this) got all ga ga over an ankle. Lo and behold, ankles were erotic, the mere site of one probably made some men swoon, and those very ankles would have been considered a sexual object. Soon as womens skirts went up and ankles became the norm to see, they no longer had the same impact. They no longer were considered a sexual object, same goes for knees.
Disclaimer point here: Not talking all the people who have a fetish for these things. I'm talking the masses.

Flash to present day, women wearing thongs on the beach, (the dental floss kind, not the ones on their feet), sure men are still buying magazine to see womens butts, but I bet alot of 'adult' magazines had to do alot of rewrites and come up with new tactics to keep their sales up. What will those magazine do if it becomes the norm for women to walk around with no tops. They sure aren't going to like all the new antics they will havecome up with then, or the hoops will they will then have to jump through to sell that magazine.

Now THAT is one of the points that I believe Beth has been trying to get across.

If I'm wrong on that Beth, please feel free to correct my misconception.

~Big



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 10:22:41 PM)

I feel there's a bit more to breasts being taboo beyond just a simple brain-washing and arbitary circumstance.  I suppose several things help make the distinction:
-Breasts are distinctly female.  (They meet "sexual" here by being gender-specific.)
-Breasts are largely considered sexually attractive.  (While I do agree that this is likely socially-influenced, the breasts are a valid basis for judgement of sexual fertility, and I believe at least part of this will be instinct- perhaps magnified by society.)
-Breasts are involved in reproduction (from the swelling in pregnancy to the lactation in a child's early life).

Breasts, on females, are more closely linked to reproduction and sex than male breasts.  Therefore, they are moreso subject to the sexual taboo.

Right now, I see law as to be, "Sexual organs must be covered."  This has been worn away, and people seem increasingly less concerned about covering up such organs, and bodies, in general.  (I appreciate you mentioning that this is my take on the basis of the laws, and not necessarily accurate.  The attention to detail is admirable.)

I find it odd that the OP poses that the porn industry is somehow a major factor in public decisions on clothing.  Sure, while it would be adversely effected, would one actually believe it to be the main reason for such laws?  Hell, do white conversative men (largely) even want the porn industry to thrive?  (I've been around these guys.  They're stuffy.  Porn's a no-no; and most of them are quite sincere on this point.)  This is odd to the point I'm finding it difficult to believe that I'm properly understanding the OP.



bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 11:10:58 PM)

The porn industry may not be a major factor, but I do believe it is still a factor, which then makes womens breasts a commodity for them.
We'll all see shortly just how stuffy those guys are when the Madam makes her client list available. I'm sure many who aren't on that list have bought a magazine, or two, or 98798437290 as well. No, not all of them, but seems like many of those stuffy people get into alot of trouble at a sexual level. I just can't imagine many haven't taken a donation to their campaign from some of these magazine, when properly channeled, of course.

Back to the breasts. Again, they are not really a sexual organ any more so than a males are. Other than the fact women lactate (some men love the idea of this, others want no part of it), the link to sex is because we have made it that way. I know I sure have, however, I also see a mans as a link to sex as well. Oh, and in many cases, womens are bigger than mens. You have many men who have man breasts, bigger than alot of females I know, so that resolves the issue, in my minds eye, that 'breasts are distinctly female' and can no longer be gender specific.

Breasts for a good portion of the people are considered sexually attractive. Lets put an analogy here. There are so many men who are turned on by women with long hair. I'm sure women with long heathly strands of hair would be considered a healthy individual, therefore a sign of producing many healthy babies, which is also a sign of sexual fertility. Just as much as a womans breasts would be, if not more so. Breasts can't indicate their health just by looking at them, the hair can. Therefore, I think that we can cross off 'Breasts are largely considered sexually attractive'. In my minds eye.

Okay, the last one 'Breasts, on a female, are more closely linked to reproduction and sex than a males breasts'. If this were the case, the need to cover up would only be when the breasts can lactate and feed. All other times, they would be allowed to be exposed, as they now function in the same manner as a males breasts.
Lets take this a step further.
If a man goes in for breasts implants and they are small (pec implants) he still gets to go topless. If a man goes in for no other reason than to get breasts implants and now he's a 38DD, he is still a man, those breasts aren't gonna be lactating anytime soon, yet he now has to cover them up. If it's because the person is now presenting themselves in a feminine manner, then since I'm not lactating, I get to put on a mans underwear and pants and I'll be good to go.

~Big






Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875