RE: Nipple Bigotry

RE: Nipple Bigotry (Full Version)

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

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/24/2007 11:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. A minor factor. However, it seems you are assuming politicans would the like porn industry (thus resisting bare breast legality)- which is not what traditional legislation has shown, nor lately. quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. I believe these sorts- the stuffy politician with a secret desire for intense sexual submission- are more interesting, so many would want to believe them to be more common, yet they are the vast minority. Perhaps, the unique exceptions. quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share Back to the breasts. Again, they are not really a sexual organ any more so than a males are. I hate to cut you off while you're about to make your point, in the coming sentences- but I just have to state here, that I strongly disagree. quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. The lactation is the point. Sure, sexual attraction is there- perhaps a fair portion of it is derived from this purpose? Nonetheless, saying that female breasts isn't a far shot from saying, "Testicles only produce semen". quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share I know I sure have, however, I also see a mans as a link to sex as well. This is more a judge of a man's physical health (and thus attractiveness) rather than a purely sexual sense- despite how an individual may feel about it. quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. Size does not determine function. And, sure- you can dress a male's nipples to look just like a female's. Then it begs the question of appearances versus reality. There is still a difference- a valid one that "moral" conservatives may value. quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. "Sexually attractive" comes from both observing aspects of sexual aspects and from physical aspects. A man's chest isn't connected to sexual organs- though it can be a good indicator of physical vitality. The difference is important in this consideration. quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. You.. just dismissed the notion that 'Breasts are largely considered sexually attractive'. I feel you may have said this in haste; might you reconsider? (I would advise considering emperical evidence, particularly in the previously mentioned porn industry deriving fairly large amounts of cash from the sexual attraction to breasts.) quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. How must something be in a certain condition all of the time to be associated with it? Gun barrels are associated with violence- even those that are hung on the wall, only to be fired incase of intruder. In such a way, breasts are associated with sexual value- even if they may not lactate when a pregnancy isn't somehow involved. quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share 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. Do you honestly believe you can put on a pair of pants and go outside, bare-breasted, without legal reprocutions? If you are attempting to portray either my view or the one I'm representing, I'm afraid that this would fall under neither. If this is your view.. I would encourage you to reconsider it. Edit: Typo. Likely more. This is my second night with no sleep, so it's time to fix this.

BitaTruble -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 12:41:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord .."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? I don't need any help, thank you. I've breast fed two children. I know exactly what they are used for and I do believe I've probably spent a bit more time around breasts than you have. Your arguements are specious, unresearched, argumentative and ignorant and your analogies are irrelevant. Breasts are not now, nor have they ever been sexual organs. You are entitled to your own opinions on the subject, but not your own facts.I've said my piece, so if you like you can continue to argue by yourself, but unless you can site sources which point to breasts being 'sexual organs', we're done. Celeste

eyesopened -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 2:07:13 AM)
When i see documentaries of other cultures and peoples even remote tribes in remote areas, genitals are nearly universally covered, both male and female but breasts are not. So this would indicate covering female breasts are strictly a product of culture not nature. There are rules about covering feet in public places for health and hygiene reasons. i would suspect covering of the anus would be a good rule in public places as well. Skid marks in your drawers is one thing but skid marks on the bus stop bench is another. Since a bare chest isn't a health concern there are still public places that require "shirt and shoes" but is not gender specific so is perfectly fair. But to keep a shirt on for no other reason that being female smacks of the middle-eastern taboo that requires females to be covered totally. This might make sense if the law required covering erogenous zones. If this were the case then men would have to cover nipples as well and that would be fair. Nipples are erogenous zones not sexual organs. When someone says "bumpin' uglies" no one gets the mental picture of two people rubbing their nipples on each other (as hot as that may be).

Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 6:37:34 AM)
quote: You see? This is where you imply, yet again, that I buy dirty magizines. CL, "Dirty magazines"? What, to you, makes them "dirty"? quote: 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. "Lying"? Where? How? "People" is a global word. "You may" obviously implies you 'May NOT!'. Why it's critical that everyone know that you don't buy or read any magazine that may illustrate a naked female breast and nipple, is puzzling. quote: That you think clothing is a conspiracy to keep the porn industry alive? You conclusion and the tangent you took on this thread. No one said anything more than the proposition that IF woman were permitted to go top-less the need/desire/drive to go see topless woman at a club for SOME people (NOT you specifically, because you neither buy magazines or go to clubs - there happy?) would be reduced, having a negative impact on those industries. Its a theory and not a fact. The focus was inequality, hypocrisy, and now, with some of your comments - paranoia. However one thing is missing. What exactly is YOUR position? Are you for hypocrisy and inequality of access and ability between genders? You can try to deflect giving your position by implying insult and attack when none was intended. You insult and accuse us of being liars and insulter, but that comes from you - not us. To this point - you haven't made a valid counter argument. The physiology of the male and female breast is no different. "Sex organ" does not apply to a female breast in any consideration except society's. What is your position?

windchymes -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 6:54:49 AM)
If we really want to get technical and nitpick terminology, breasts are glands, mammary glands, not organs. Or, as my old anatomy and physiology prof used to say, boobs are nothing but oversized sweat glands.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 1:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord .."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? I don't need any help, thank you. I've breast fed two children. I know exactly what they are used for and I do believe I've probably spent a bit more time around breasts than you have. Your arguements are specious, unresearched, argumentative and ignorant and your analogies are irrelevant. Breasts are not now, nor have they ever been sexual organs. You are entitled to your own opinions on the subject, but not your own facts.I've said my piece, so if you like you can continue to argue by yourself, but unless you can site sources which point to breasts being 'sexual organs', we're done. They're sexual organs by definition. You're trying to look for some cliche usage- and claiming my entire argument irrevalent because the cliche hasn't been used in any major source you nor I am aware of. If you are unwilling to use a dictionary, I am sorry, but I can't help. A big boat is a red boat is a red boat, regardless of whether or not there's a dictory of red boats that lists it.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 2:19:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: You see? This is where you imply, yet again, that I buy dirty magizines. CL, "Dirty magazines"? What, to you, makes them "dirty"? It's a reference to a type of magizine, not a criticism for the type of maginize. (Seriously, it's tiresome to keep explaining the obvious here.) quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: 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. "Lying"? Where? How? "People" is a global word. "You may" obviously implies you 'May NOT!'. Why it's critical that everyone know that you don't buy or read any magazine that may illustrate a naked female breast and nipple, is puzzling. You said that I read those magizines. You also said that my view was that breasts are a commedity. Unless you're truly desense to my arguement- which I can not seem to bring myself to believe a human might be so reprehensibly distant from reason to be- this strikes me as a blantant lie. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: That you think clothing is a conspiracy to keep the porn industry alive? You conclusion and the tangent you took on this thread. No one said anything more than the proposition that IF woman were permitted to go top-less the need/desire/drive to go see topless woman at a club for SOME people (NOT you specifically, because you neither buy magazines or go to clubs - there happy?) would be reduced, having a negative impact on those industries. Its a theory and not a fact. My tanget? No, boobs as an ecomic force and reason for clothing legislation is entirely yours. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth The focus was inequality, hypocrisy, and now, with some of your comments - paranoia. Inequality as recognizing the male and female bodies as different? Hypocrisy in.. what? Paranoia in being annoyed at you being slow and making up things? Blah. I just know that, next post, you're going to be making up yet something else new in this barriage of junk. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth However one thing is missing. What exactly is YOUR position? That religiously-based morality should likely give way to increased freedoms. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Are you for hypocrisy and inequality of access and ability between genders? Gah! You're so slow! The current laws aren't unequal- how can you not get this? You're so stuck up on the seperate applications of the same law! How do I get this across to you? Or are you holding your ears shut, singing la-la-la-la? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth You can try to deflect giving your position by implying insult and attack when none was intended. You insult and accuse us of being liars and insulter, but that comes from you - not us. Yeah. It's not like you've misrepresented me and called me a hypocrit. No, not you. Just how short is your memory, anyway? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth To this point - you haven't made a valid counter argument. The physiology of the male and female breast is no different. "Sex organ" does not apply to a female breast in any consideration except society's. .."the physiology of the male and female breast is no different"..? Were you not there in middleschool when you first started to notice that there was something a little different about the girls' chests? You think that it's an imaginary label with on basis in reality? Do you honestly believe this? (Yes, I'm mad. I'm finding it difficult you can be this slow- I do think you're lying out of convinence.) quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth What is your position? Stated above. Not that it matters. I do not find you compotent in understanding the conventional argument- much less other outside arguments. I feel as though you think any random thing about a subject you can cough out of your mouth is a valid argument, and I can sense the utter lack of depth of your understanding for other arguments. I'm entirely aware I should just give up- mark you off as stupid and ignore you. This really is going no where. But part of me is just.. I'm curious to see what you are. If this is really all there is. If you're really shallow, or if you're just lying, or if there's something else. I want to understnad what's making someone act in such a thoughtless manner. People like you interest me. The psycology- what it is that drives you. Do you look for your own gains- making your own point- at the expense of truth? Do you actually care about truth, or is it on a means to an end? Do others' arguments hurt you- or are you unable to understand them- or are afraid of them contradicting you so badly that it brings you to do this? In any case, to humor myself- this is my intent in a debate. To lay out all points on a table- to consider those not present- and then to debate. This is CollarMe.com's message board. It is not difficult to find a disproportionly high agreement that bare breasts should be legalized as, frankly, most of us are quite used to it. I wonder, though, if you were looking for this- a pat on the back and a "Hell yeah! Boobs!", or if you actually sought some truth. I wonder.. do you even know the difference? Just what are you, and why aren't you acknowledging outside arguments in earnest?

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 2:21:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes If we really want to get technical and nitpick terminology, breasts are glands, mammary glands, not organs. Or, as my old anatomy and physiology prof used to say, boobs are nothing but oversized sweat glands. Yeah, that's in finer biological terms. Sort of like how a van isn't actually a car- though you can refer to your van as "my car". Heh. Is kind of funny, though- "oversized sweat glands".

MasDom -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 3:28:23 PM)
I say put on a strap ons on a couple thousand woman protesters. Parade them around with signs saying. so if I have one of these you don't care about my chest. And get some news coverage.

BitaTruble -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord They're sexual organs by definition. Cite the source then because by definition in every single dictionary which I own and every dictionary I could find on -line, disagree with your "fact". Talk's cheap. Put up or shut up and prove your definition with a cite. quote: If you are unwilling to use a dictionary, I am sorry, but I can't help. I'm more than willing to use a dictionary. I have several .. which one lists 'breasts are sexual organs' by definition since every single one I own lists them as either milk-producing or milk-secreting organs and not as sexual organs. You said it, so prove it and quit pussy-footing around. Celeste

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:14:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord They're sexual organs by definition. Cite the source then because by definition in every single dictionary which I own and every dictionary I could find on -line, disagree with your "fact". Talk's cheap. Put up or shut up and prove your definition with a cite. Bah. You can't use a dictionary? Fine, whatever. Sexual organ. "Sexual"- of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict> "Organ"- bodily parts performing a function -Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary So, as you probably learned back in elementary school, you take the adjective, and it modifies the noun- so "sexual organ" would be "bodily parts performing a function of, relating to, or asscioated with sex of the sexes"- such as breasts, which lactate, which are associated with females. Just.. don't bother me anymore. I really don't know why you needed me to spell that out for you, but I've just lost interested. I'm not here to have to teach people how to learn to use dictionaries. This is stupid. quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: If you are unwilling to use a dictionary, I am sorry, but I can't help. I'm more than willing to use a dictionary. I have several .. which one lists 'breasts are sexual organs' by definition since every single one I own lists them as either milk-producing or milk-secreting organs and not as sexual organs. You said it, so prove it and quit pussy-footing around. Yeah. Because it was just so freaking hard to do. I had to look up the adjective, then the noun. Freaking hell. PS- Just don't respond anymore. This stupidity has really just depressed me. Let's just forget you needed to ask and move on- at a later time and elsewhere.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:23:21 PM)
quote: why aren't you acknowledging outside arguments in earnest? When and if you made one it may have been appropriate. You don't read a dictionary. You contradict yourself. You backtrack and you have no references. If you bother to look for any, while there, try to learn about the impact of hormones on physiology. Its the basis for hormone treatments given to people considering trans-gender surgery. You need to reconcile the fact that if the physiology were different the hormone therapy would not have an impact on the secondary sexual characteristic the breast. Your position in your words is "stated above". "Above" the only reference found is this profound statement in answer to the direct question "what is your position? quote: That religiously-based morality should likely give way to increased freedoms. Try and focus now - how does "religiously-based morality" address this OP? Once you define it - how "should" it "likely give way to increased freedoms"? If you can handle another question - why do you support inequality between genders? Lacking any ability to address the issues presented feel free to feign insult and rationalize your continued attempt at denigration as a debate tactic. Its one of the things that makes you so endearing and a pleasure to read.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:31:59 PM)
To answer the first part: There you go with the accusations again. Just go read the links above for dictionary definitions, as, apparently, I don't read it. Yeah. Adjective modifying noun. Freaking hard things. And sentences. Woo. Scary. The second part: Inequality. I've explained how it's not meant to be inequality, the bodies are just different. Then the condescending stuff from a slow person. Lovely. Yes, using logic and reason are all vague argumentative things. It's not like anyone actually believes in being reasonable. Look. I realize you can just pig-headed not get anything all day. You can even do stupid things like just ignore the copy/paste'd, provided definitions, and say that I'm just wrong. You can constantly whine about "inequality", and how everyone's so cruel. And, you know what? I can't stop you. I was just trying to have a reasonable discussion. I wasn't prepared for this silliness where you can't see anything past your own nose. People on CM.com, outside of the whole I-hate-Bush rants, have tended to be a at least a bit more reasonable than this. So, in conclusion: yes. Boobs. Let's free 'em. 'cause there's no reason not to. You have the only point in the freaking world. Also, man boobs and women boobs are the same thing. Go us. Yaya.

earthycouple -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:37:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's.. not that people hate women.. Law makers wanted sexual organs covered up. Likely part of some old religious idealism of morality. *Women happen to have sexual organs in their chests.* You could satisfy both sides of the situation by making it law for men's chests to be covered up, too. But is that really want you want? 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- unless you are for men needing to cover their chests- but for other reasons; I will not insult you as to pose that I know your specific reasons. If you want to change the law- from sexual organs to genitals- this will beg the question, "Why cover anything at all?" The idea of contradicting the morals dismisses the former moral reasoning. Why not embrace nudism-tolerant laws? 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. Hmmm....I'm pretty darn sure there are no sexual organs in my chest....but that doesn't mean my nips don't produce sexual pleasure....just like most men I know....nips are hot and a turn on for almost all of us, male or female.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: earthycouple Hmmm....I'm pretty darn sure there are no sexual organs in my chest....but that doesn't mean my nips don't produce sexual pleasure....just like most men I know....nips are hot and a turn on for almost all of us, male or female. Yeah. The dictionary definition's above- so, yeah, you do have sexual organs on your chest. Yeah. The nipples can be hot for both genders. A good point in favor of the law being changed. It's not that I disagree- I'm just annoyed with the posters above who believe that, just because something might be a good idea, all points against it are automatically invalid. Really annoyed at the ones who claim to have trouble using the dictionary. Grumbles.

BitaTruble -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord They're sexual organs by definition. Cite the source then because by definition in every single dictionary which I own and every dictionary I could find on -line, disagree with your "fact". Talk's cheap. Put up or shut up and prove your definition with a cite. Bah. You can't use a dictionary? Fine, whatever. Sexual organ. "Sexual"- of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict> "Organ"- bodily parts performing a function -Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary So, as you probably learned back in elementary school, you take the adjective, and it modifies the noun- so "sexual organ" would be "bodily parts performing a function of, relating to, or asscioated with sex of the sexes"- such as breasts, which lactate, which are associated with females. Just.. don't bother me anymore. I really don't know why you needed me to spell that out for you, but I've just lost interested. I'm not here to have to teach people how to learn to use dictionaries. This is stupid. quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: If you are unwilling to use a dictionary, I am sorry, but I can't help. I'm more than willing to use a dictionary. I have several .. which one lists 'breasts are sexual organs' by definition since every single one I own lists them as either milk-producing or milk-secreting organs and not as sexual organs. You said it, so prove it and quit pussy-footing around. Yeah. Because it was just so freaking hard to do. I had to look up the adjective, then the noun. Freaking hell. PS- Just don't respond anymore. This stupidity has really just depressed me. Let's just forget you needed to ask and move on- at a later time and elsewhere. There you go with even more specious arguements. You stated, categorically, that BREASTS were sexual organs. It's the word BREASTS you are supposed to define since you stated as FACT that they are sexual organs and they are NOT. I only ever attacked your arguements, never you. As for not responding anymore, if and when the mods and/or my Master tell me to drop something, I shall. You do not and never will have the power to tell me not to post. I agree though, this stupidity has gone on quite long enough.. so maybe you should quit posting it. Celeste

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 4:51:16 PM)
Ah. Breasts: The the nipple thingies with the lactation stuff below 'em. Hope that helps ya. Sigh. Enough with the stupid attempts at insults. This whole thing's just old.

adoracat -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 7:15:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Ah. Breasts: The the nipple thingies with the lactation stuff below 'em. Hope that helps ya. Sigh. Enough with the stupid attempts at insults. This whole thing's just old. gently stating for the record...... male breasts can lactate also. medical fact. so there is no real difference other than appearance between the breast tissue of a male, and of a female. kitten, who hasnt felt inclined to toss her opinion in till now....

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/25/2007 7:24:00 PM)
Yeah, it's a neat point. As it's rather rare, it doesn't really play into this much, though it does go to point out some of the inconsistencies in the simplistic notions of human bodies we often go by. PS- No worries. You can say things without getting bitten. I was a bit upset with some others over less-than-mature things. I'm glad you decided to speak up- it's a good point.

Vendaval -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 12:07:37 AM)
Free the nipple protests? Now that's an idea I can get behind, in front of, off on...

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625