RE: Nipple Bigotry

RE: Nipple Bigotry (Full Version)

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

Message

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 12:10:53 AM)
what i find funny is that, in the 60s, women burned their bras (for whatever reason, doesn't matter to me), yet, now, women are told they have to cover up? doesn't anyone else find this amusing?

WickedTruth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 12:29:02 AM)
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. I didn't realize that you were so young. That's not a remark directed at your chronological age either. If I had attempted to insult you, you'd have known it. I called you on your statements being less than factual. All the stupid comments have been your own as have all the insults. Hopefully, you'll grow up a bit before you attempt to engage in further debate. First, know your subject by doing your research, then don't attempt to state your opinions as if they are facts and last, don't insult nor underestimate the intelligence of your opposition. You have done nothing in this thread to give any indication that you have a clue what you're speaking about. Since you are so unarmed to debate and I have no desire nor wish to engage in discussions with children I will leave you to your coloring books and have no further dialogue with you now or in the future. Celeste

bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 1:19:48 AM)
SEXUAL 1 : of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict> * of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes Every part of the naked body can be associated with sex, regardless of gender. Any part of us can be an erogenous zone. By this definition, in and of itself, the breasts are only different in size. I also see no direct reference to breasts in this part. <sexual* differentiation> <sexual conflict> Since it's been determined that both sexes can lactate, there is no visible difference other than size. While the mammary glands that produce milk are present in the male, they normally remain undeveloped. But they have them, they can lactate. Lactation would be the only outward visible difference, other than size and we’ve already established that both sexes have various sizes, from small to large. Any argument that women lactate naturally and men don’t is not valid. To do so would mean women who have never been pregnant and never lactated are then able to freely go bare chested. I see no reference to breasts in this part of the above dictionary definition. ORGAN * b : bodily parts performing a function or cooperating in an activity <the eyes and related structures that make up the visual organs> This does not say anything about breasts. Even if you put the two together, there is no direct reference to breasts. The implication is made by the individual. quote: 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". On the contrary, I have NO testicles visible. Visible testicles ARE a sexual differentiation. Both men and women have breasts. quote: 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. I said nothing of ‘these stuffy politician’ having a secret desire for intense sexual submission. I said we’ll see shortly how many would be on the madams list as clients. That does not imply intense anything, or that they seek submission. You are reading much more into what I have said, than what I, in fact, did say. quote: 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. Both men and women have attractive breasts. Both men and women’s breasts are sexual – the purely sexual comment is only implied; a product of social conditioning and interpretation. quote: Do you honestly believe you can put on a pair of pants and go outside, bare-breasted, without legal repercussions? Probably only in New York, but that is why people are trying to change this. quote: If this is your view.. I would encourage you to reconsider it. I believe something to this effect was also told to those women who marched down the streets with signs saying they wanted to vote. Talk about the repercussions of THAT march. However, women are voting - despite how any individual may feel about it. The difference is not that a woman’s breasts are so much different, it’s the hormones that make them such. Now, if we’re going to go that route, hormones can affect both men and women in every part of their person sexually. If a woman has a mastectomy, does not have breast augmentation. She no longer has milk ducts. Bet she still can’t walk down the street topless. How is that right?! If a man is taking female hormones, his breasts will grow. If he does not do anything more than that to change his outward appearance, he’s still able to walk down the street topless.

bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 2:44:14 AM)
Referring to your Post #58 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord -Breasts are distinctly female. (They meet "sexual" here by being gender-specific. Men have breast tissue. Men can go into a doctors office and have pecs inserted. This is called BREAST augmentation. Both men and women have breasts. Breasts are not gender-specific. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord -Breasts are involved in reproduction Breasts are involved in reproduction. The key word here is involved.. Many of our organs are involved in the reproductive process. Our whole body is involved in it. Breasts can’t reproduce. This still doesn’t make breasts a sexual organ quote: (from the swelling in pregnancy to the lactation in a child's early life). Hormones are produced to make breasts swell and lactate. Men and women can avail themselves to various hormones, achieve the same results, and not ever been pregnant. Per Scientific America, men can produce milk, which can feed a baby and not have taken hormones supplements. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Breasts, on females, are more closely linked to reproduction and sex than male breasts I’d certainly like to know just who made this close link and the basis for this decision. The only thing breasts produce is milk. Breasts don’t reproduce. The sexual connotation is by implication only and society driven.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 6:26:14 AM)
Sorry, but the "sexual" can refer to genders and "organ" can refer to a functional part of the body. If you can't get that- even after reading the dictionary- I can't help you. You're so stuck in single definitions- that "sexual" means "relating to intercourse" and that "organ" refers to the biological list of primary organs. It's even a stupid argument. "Sexual organs" could be replaced by any other term that refers to the grouping of things that must be covered as they're seen to those having made the laws to be most closely linked to private aspects of human nature. Yet, you insist on telling me that the dictionary is wrong? Grrr. Grow up, damn it. "Sexual" can refer to things of or relating to gender- "sexes" in the definition was a reference to gender, it wasn't incorrectly trying to make sex, intercourse, plural with the annex of '-es'. "Organ" can refer to things that serve a fuction as a group of cells in the body. It's straight-forward. It's accurate. If you can't get this, see a tutor. But not me.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 6:40:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedTruth 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. I didn't realize that you were so young. That's not a remark directed at your chronological age either. If I had attempted to insult you, you'd have known it. I called you on your statements being less than factual. All the stupid comments have been your own as have all the insults. Hopefully, you'll grow up a bit before you attempt to engage in further debate. First, know your subject by doing your research, then don't attempt to state your opinions as if they are facts and last, don't insult nor underestimate the intelligence of your opposition. You have done nothing in this thread to give any indication that you have a clue what you're speaking about. Since you are so unarmed to debate and I have no desire nor wish to engage in discussions with children I will leave you to your coloring books and have no further dialogue with you now or in the future. Anyhow, my point's the only one on the table. You sort of argued about one using words you didn't like, had the dictionary thrown at you, then ran off. So.. meh. How intelligent you must be, and how grown up. You'd have to bring up something new, to continue- your only point so far has been a failed contradiction, so, meh. Don't mistake our angers and reasons for insults. You're upset you're unable to make a point. I'm annoyed I had to teach someone that claimed to be intelligent how to string a noun and an adjectives together outside of idiomatic usage.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 6:56:32 AM)
Ok, enough. XI

Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 7:29:45 AM)
quote: Anyhow, my point's the only one on the table. You have made a great point. When anyone wonders what kind of prejudice, hypocrisy, and ignorance is behind nipple bigotry they can read your posts. What two things do all these statements have in common? quote: Breasts are involved in reproduction. Breasts are distinctly female. Breasts are sexual organs by definition. The current laws aren't unequal. breasts are private parts- sexual organs- like genitals. Breasts are sexual organs, Breasts are distinctly female. In common? They were all made by you, and they are factually wrong. And then there is this quote of yours: quote: I do not believe the spirit is, "Male genitals need to be covered, and female genitals and breasts must be covered." Why, if they are as your were previously quoted "sexual organs - like genitals", did you need to reference them separately when referring to female genitals. If the common and accepted, or your common for that matter, reference to genitals automatically implied or inferred breasts, there would be no need to add the term to the sentence to make sure people knew you were including them in your attempt at a point. I know it has to be in simple terms for you, so I'll use another reference you employed. You use "red" to modify car because without it nobody would know that's what you were talking about. You used breast to modify genitals, because perhaps down deep, maybe even you don't agree with the illogic of your position. But this may be your best example of self contraction, and backtracking: quote: I think you may be confusing "sex organs" with "sexual organs"? ("Sex organs" is a term that typically refers to genitals and such, where as "sexual organs" are organs, or body tissue that serve a purpose, that are sexual, or of or related to gender.) Using your opinion as fact justifies the Islamic use of a body berka on females. Were your standards applied in the west, it would be required since for some; hair, feet, toes, necks, fingers, ears, lips, knees (especially the backs of knees), teeth, eyes, are all "sexual organs" capable of generating arousal. Your views enlighten many by illustrating the puritanical and incorrect beliefs that are pervasive. You are entertaining and funny; but you also serve to illustrate the naiveté and factual ignorance that must be addressed.

kittinSol -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 7:39:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened 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. As I was reading through the thread, I was hoping, just hoping that somebody would make this particular point: thank you for having your eyes (and mind) opened. We are so nombrilistic we make sweeping assumptions (such as: "Breasts are sexual organs.") because of our own cultural bias.

domiguy -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 7:53:04 AM)
I like tits. That was going to be the entirety of my post but I've got some time to kill.....What makes breastesses sexual organs? I know that there are some women who can sustain an orgasm from having their ta-tas manipulated...But the difference between a dudes nips and some gals beyond the milk producing element seems rather obscure...I can't even find conclusive evidence that suggests that there are more nerve endings in a women's nips than a man's. I have dated women who let me know that their tits were purely ornamental and that all stimuli should be directed at other areas....I hated them all for sharing this info. We are a country full of uptight jack asses...Perhaps this is why we are the leaders in percentage of rape? ( I believe this to be true...Not sure) Although it is kind of like getting a toy out of a box of cracker jacks...When you raise the shirt or bra of a women...You never quite know what you are going to find there....Part of the mystery. If a women would like to show off her tits...I could actually care less....Much like shirts that show off a woman's mid riff.....There undoubtedly will be those who will fail to use proper judgment.

spankmepink11 -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 8:30:22 AM)
Curiousperson,...the only point you've made is how childishly you can behave. As many have stated....BY DEFINITION....BREASTS ARE NOT SEX ORGANS. I'm not sure which is more amusing, your ridiculous analogy, or your temper tantrum. Regardless, i've enjoyed watching the self proclaimed "genius" make an ass of himself . Good Luck Beth.....Freedom to all nipples!!

LdyScarletDomina -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 9:17:25 AM)
Using the exact same Miriam-Webster's dictionary that was used to define "sexual" and "organ" a search on the word breast reveals NO description of "sexual organ" Main Entry: 1breast [image]http://miriamwebster.com/images/audio.gif[/image] Pronunciation: 'brest Function: noun Etymology: Middle English brest, from Old English brEost; akin to Old High German brust breast, Old Irish brú belly, Russian bryukho 1 : either of the pair of mammary glands extending from the front of the chest in pubescent and adult human females and some other mammals; also : either of the analogous but rudimentary organs of the male chest especially when enlarged 2 a : the fore or ventral part of the body between the neck and the abdomen b : the part of an article of clothing covering the breast 3 : the seat of emotion and thought : BOSOM 4 a : something (as a front, swelling, or curving part) resembling a breast b : FACE 6 - breast·ed [image]http://miriamwebster.com/images/audio.gif[/image] /'bres-t&d/ adjective Also, Thank you to the person who posted the info on page 2 or 3 about Victorian England. Breast "repression" (please read that word with the humor it was intended) is actually a socio-religious prejudice started by the puritans and carried into absolute insanity by Queen Victoria. (Who is widely rumored to have LOVED her horse and died in her stable) I agree partially with you Beth that it has turned into an equality issue here in the US - but it was started as a religious and social issue by a Queen who was obsessively terrfied of female sexuality and was carried on by the religious right that started the colonies of America. And IMHO I agree with those that stated that forcing women to cover their breasts based on someone elses standard of morality puts us in line with the same people who make women in Iran and Iraq cover up their entire bodies. I mean come on - do you really think the ankle or the hair is a sexual organ? Just my .02. (And I will be right by your side with my pasties in hand Beth!!!) (edited to comment that I as a historical author with a minor in British History, specialty in Victorian England, I am an absolute repository of nearly useless information on that era. Some of the junk they used to claim about women would have you guys ROLLING with laughter!!!!!!)

feastie -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:22:23 AM)
Breasts are sexual because men have made them so. Many (not all) men can't control themselves with covered breasticles around, much less uncovered. Hence the wording of the law.

LdyScarletDomina -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:37:56 AM)
feastie. I agree with you at point. Men did carry on the stigma of breasts. But, I don't agree that men "can't control themselves" I think that is an excuse. Its not my fault if some man starts drooling when he sees a bare tit. If a man cannot control himself when a breast is exposed than it is his problem and responsibility. And trust me that same man that "can't control himself" when faced with fill in the situation will be in complete control in the presence of any law officer or authority figure. I don't believe in excuses for a lack of will power. Think about this. In Iran they make women cover their entire bodies and hair because they claim a man has no control over his sexuality and will attack a woman because her long hair or ankles might turn him on. Making a law based on men needing to be controled like a 5 year old child allows the start of a society I definately do not want to be a part of. It assumes that we need Big Brother to hold our hands because we cannot be responsible for ourselves. (please don't think that I am acusing you of having this opinion. I'm not. But the progression of "I can't control myself so the law has to control everyone else just scares me) Lady Scarlet

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:05:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spankmepink11 Curiousperson,...the only point you've made is how childishly you can behave. As many have stated....BY DEFINITION....BREASTS ARE NOT SEX ORGANS. I'm not sure which is more amusing, your ridiculous analogy, or your temper tantrum. Regardless, i've enjoyed watching the self proclaimed "genius" make an ass of himself . Good Luck Beth.....Freedom to all nipples!! They.. are.. the.. dictionary.. defined.. it. Gah. Temper tandrum- damn straight. You're obnixously slow.

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:08:22 AM)
i can picture it now...a large group of protesters, mostly women, all carrying signs, all topless...protesting the inequality of women.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:08:51 AM)
I personally have never understood the forcing of any part of the body to be covered- although it is appropriate to do so if the person is sick. All openings should be guarded and cleaned then. So progressing forward in this is great. And breasts have nothing to do with reproduction. They have to do with offering sustenance.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:10:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LdyScarletDomina Using the exact same Miriam-Webster's dictionary that was used to define "sexual" and "organ" a search on the word breast reveals NO description of "sexual organ" "Sexual organ", in my usage, is a an adjective modifying a noun, not a compound noun. Say a particular dictionary didn't mention that a "teacher" can be all of a: "person", "individual", "human". Does this mean that elementary school teachers are not people, individuals, or humans? No. The dictionary just didn't happen to mention it. It did mention, however, the provided definition I gave- that works. Gah.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:11:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross And breasts have nothing to do with reproduction. They have to do with offering sustenance. Kind of. They offer substainance to offspring. Another "sexual" can refer to (as provided by the dictionary in a previous post) gender-specific aspects.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:13:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven Ok, enough. XI So be it. But how come no one can accept a dictionary-provided definition? It's frustrating to me.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875