RE: Nipple Bigotry (Full Version)

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



Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:04:13 PM)

Really?  What function does it serve?

Edit:  Actually, I suppose this is a fair enough time to bring up a further subject.  I had hoped a grasp on the "sexual organ" concept would be firmer, but it seems to have encountered drama.  So, moving on.

To what degree is something specific to males and females?  Or, to what degree is a feature sexual (or of or relating to gender)?  At what point is one uncomfortable with it being public?

What do you want the kids to see?  Is a man's errection inappropriate?  A woman's hard nipples?  The area around the berasts (cleavage)?

I'd encourage you all to consider that this is CollarMe.com's message board.  Many of us are concerned with sex far more than the average individual- particularly more "jaded" views on such.  I assure you all, other views exist.  I hope to reveal a point of consideration for people who feel concerned about these things.  And, truly, I hope to put to rest this silly notion that men are just trying to control women with laws.

Not that anyone has to believe me off the bat.  Let's talk.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:10:23 PM)

What?  An Adam's Apple?  I don't honestly know.  It is, however, a characteristic of the sexes, namely the male one.  And that, as per Answers.com, is the definition of sexual. 

You gonna dispute that they're organs? 

Cuz if not, they're to be covered just as the breast is. 

And if we accept the fact that they're not really sexual organs, then neither are breasts.

Hmph.  I can't believe I'm debating with you.

Yours,


benji



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:14:18 PM)

Organs.  Cell structures that serve a purpose.  I asked you what purpose they served.

You being right or wrong isn't a big deal.  I'm just hoping to help get the thinking mood going.  You don't have to worry.  That "debate" with others is something I truly hope isn't repeated.  Open minds are too beautiful.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:16:06 PM)

Okay.  Glad we got that out.  Now, is the adam's apple a sexual organ?



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:18:33 PM)

Wouldn't seem so.  It lacks a purpose so far as I know.

Nonetheless, I'm not using "sexual organ" in the strictly scientific manner.  While my usage happens to be accurate in this sense, sexual aspects- things that differiate the gender- are a dividing line to consider, and the adam's apple would be an example of such.

So, even though it may not technically be, we can considerit one in the contextual meaning of the newly coined phrase.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:22:41 PM)

So define sexual organs for me.  The way you see it, regardless of other sources.

Yours,


benji



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:31:28 PM)

There's two definitions I'm going off at the moment.

The first is one from a dictionary, supplimented with context, along the lines of, "a functional cellure structure in the human body which varies significantly with gender".  Such a definition begs the question of, "To what extent is 'significant'?", which will provide fodder for later points.

The second definition is pretty much the first.  It deviates from the dictionary, though it may server some purpose more readily.  Basically, the first definition, minus the "fuctional" modifier- in which case an adam's apple would meet such a definition.

The third is one I'm not using, but commonly referenced in this thread.  It's a reference to "sex organs", which typically refers explicitly to the penis and vaginia, then to their more immediately related organs (often referred to as "secondary sex organs").

PS-  I need to hit the sack pretty quickly if I hope to get any sleep tonight.  I'll, hopefully, have free time tommorow afternoon (and, in all likelihood, be able to respond then).



gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:40:40 PM)

Okay.  Varies significantly with gender.  Now, I think it has been clearly shown that breasts do not vary hugely based on gender - anatomically, they are identical.  The only difference is that they are often larger and formed differently on women who happen to be lucky enough to be thin and have big gazongas. 

That, however, is hormonal, and both versions can be created through pills, surgery, or just shitty genetics. 

So is a woman's ass, which is often nice and round and smack-as-you-tell-her-to-bake-you-a-pieable, sexual as well?

Or hands?  I mean, if we accept the idea that body modification of various forms is allowed, because the definition says "gender," not "sex," then soft hands with thin fingers should be a feminine trait as well. 

All I'm saying is, I'm done with this shit.

Yours,


benji



Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 7:53:31 AM)

benji,
Remember that arguing with ignorance never brings knowledge or the opportunity for agreement. Perhaps the problem is, if you lack confidence in your own gender and sexual characteristics, you need to have a clear demarcation line - like the requirement of shirts, so you aren't confused?

Anyway...

The movement goes on, seeking nothing but equal ability, not mandating or requiring anything.

I started chatting with some of the walking and bike riding policeman patrolling the South Bay. The fun part in the discussions I've had with the people on enforcement side of this issue is that, after they smile and laugh at the thought of beth taking off her top and wearing nipple looking nipple pasties, they say that they would have to call their Sargent to determine how to proceed.

The only warning we got was if the event became a "public nuisance". The definition of public nuisance is so broad that a group of 10 Elvis impersonators qualifies.

The big issue to determine at this point is concern over beth being considered a "sex offender". From the law books and the couple hundred dollar phone call to an attorney, that really is the "worse case". But she, the lawyer, loves the idea of this making a great test case. I tried to recruit her to the event, but no luck so far.

Stay tuned.



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 8:57:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

Okay.  Varies significantly with gender.  Now, I think it has been clearly shown that breasts do not vary hugely based on gender - anatomically, they are identical.  The only difference is that they are often larger and formed differently on women who happen to be lucky enough to be thin and have big gazongas.


While not hugely different, they tend to vary enough to discomfort many.  In addition, you're considering it from a more-than-average scientific point of view; for most, it's a matter of looking, something something that strikes one as plainly different, and then concluding.

And while you are more technically correct, for those concerned with morality and emotions, this is a big difference.  Even if such individuals are basing their ideas in a visual misinterreptation, there remains several points from which to consider:
-They may be mistaking magnitude, but they are correct as to the different natures.
-Their emotions, even if based in something that was incorrect, need be taken into account, as they are part of society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

That, however, is hormonal, and both versions can be created through pills, surgery, or just shitty genetics.


As can genital reconstruction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

So is a woman's ass, which is often nice and round and smack-as-you-tell-her-to-bake-you-a-pieable, sexual as well?


If it indeed varies with gender, then, yes, it is.  (I haven't observed enough asses in recollection to be able to know this empiracly.)

I would point out that "sexual", in these cases, should be considered as a 'degree-to-which', as opposed to a boolean.  (Instead of, "Is it sexual?  Yes or no?", it should be, "How sexual is it?"  After this point, individuals may have varying opinions on what is too sexual, and what is fine- which is a case study onto itself.  One I'd like to be able to discuss with a surficient study group.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

Or hands?  I mean, if we accept the idea that body modification of various forms is allowed, because the definition says "gender," not "sex," then soft hands with thin fingers should be a feminine trait as well.


Yup, hands could be considered slightly sexual.  I believe this is an example of a slightly sexual trait that most probably wouldn't find overly sexual for general display.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji

All I'm saying is, I'm done with this shit.


Bah.  That's a shame.  You made some points and didn't seem upset about things (besides this).  Well, peace.



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 9:02:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Perhaps the problem is, if you lack confidence in your own gender and sexual characteristics, you need to have a clear demarcation line - like the requirement of shirts, so you aren't confused?


Shirts are actually made to remind people of the things that they cover up!  Fascinating theory.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 9:07:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

benji,
Remember that arguing with ignorance never brings knowledge or the opportunity for agreement. 


It was that realization coupled with the fact that I needed sleep that made me decide that the whole shebang was over.

I'm all for booby, just FYI. 

Yours,


benji



CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 9:21:21 AM)

I suppose anything that wants to have an intelligent discussion that doesn't happen to be, "I'm all for booby" is now ignorance.  Bah.

Whatever.  Enjoy life your way.  It probably is fun anyhow.



BitaTruble -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 9:52:32 AM)

Thank you for the update, Merc.

I'm going to be passing this information along to Himself and, please, do continue to keep us.. abreast of things. [8D]

Celeste



Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 9:56:21 AM)

benji,
It was also distracting.

Consider, this isn't about breasts. Look at billboards, TV, and any ad; you can show the top of the breast, the bottom, the side, all around except the center - the nipple. But you can show the nipple if the gender belonging to the nipple is male. All the arguments regarding breasts aren't even appropriate to the debate. It's only the little bitty bit on the tip.

beth's working on a poster of just nipples - pick the ones that are "obscene"?



gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 11:02:55 AM)

Merc,

Respect as I do your viewpoint, one thing leaves to be said.

Booby.

Yours,


benji



Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 11:50:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji
Merc,
Respect as I do your viewpoint, one thing leaves to be said.
Booby.
Yours,
benji

[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=shake.gif][sm=shake.gif][sm=shake.gif][sm=shake.gif][sm=shake.gif][sm=shake.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

"Booby" - Isn't that what they call policemen in the UK? [;)] 

In support of beth's poster / quiz - Please send her a picture of just your nipple. I'm going to have her set up a test to see if the "obscene/illegal" female ones can be distinguished from the "PC/socially acceptable" male ones. Remember - JUST the nipple - no "sexual organs" or breast pics for that matter.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 12:11:20 PM)

I think hairy nipples should be disqualified, because they are either men's, which I do not want to see, or women's, and I do not want to see them.

Yours,


benji



BitaTruble -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 12:11:48 PM)

I'd like to help, but all the pictures of my nipples have needles in them or clothespins on them. ::chuckles::

Celeste




LdyScarletDomina -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/27/2007 1:23:47 PM)

I'm afraid mine are too terribly recognizable as I am pregnant enough for them to be wayyyyy too perky!!!!!

Scarlet



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.785156E-02