|
CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/31/2007 11:30:05 AM)
|
I appreciate the more civil tone. I'm.. sorry if my treatment of the poster above seems a little harsh.
quote:
ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking
Combining an adjective and a noun does not make it accurate.
I could say "sexual car" and say that this particular car is only used by women, but it would not make it accurate.
The fact here is that there are no differentiations physiologically between a man's nipples and a woman's other than size. If you say that a woman's breast/nipple is a "sexual organ" than the same label applies to a man's nipple.
"Sexual car" would be wrong since, well, unless it's a car that's fitted specifically for a female or male's body.. which would be oddly forward for today's concept of a car.. the car isn't towards a male or woman. So I would have to say that I find such an analogy (i.e., a car being referred to as a "sexual car") to be flawed in the primary sense. However, to some other end, you might argue that such a car, should it be designed for one gender over another, is slightly sexual- assigning the sexual tag, yet annexing it with a diminished order modifier.
And, yeah. You're right. The term does apply to a male's nipples in one of the two senses in which it was defined. (I cited 'sexual', primarily, as being involved with reproduction- which includes the raising of young, which includes breast feeding. Defaulting to a simplier concept, I went with the gender-based definition, showing another way in which it may apply.)
Lactation would serve as a difference between the two. And while, as others stated, male nipples can secrete a subsnce- I must state, considering the nature of equilibrium, I doubt that such a secretion is the same as a woman's lactation. Also, this is more of an uncommon thing- unless, of course, I'm too young as to realize that most men lactate over the course of their lives, in which case I have a bit more empirical evidence to search for. Still, as lactation is often sited in some- to my understand, a small fraction of- of trauma cases from Vetniam vets... I do believe such to be uncommon.
I am pointing out the conversative view here, including the notion that breasts are move directly linked to sexual notions when on a female, and that this is potentially offensive to conventional morality.
Nonetheless, one must consider the audience. This is a BDSM site. We're not exactly a prudish bunch of people. Hell, we're the ones who care about sex enough, who explore it enough, to even bother signing up for and participating in such a site when there are other things to do with life. There's no doubt that this sites' members are, on average, a great deal more liberal on sexual issues than the common population.
My point is, there's another view point out there- and it's one that's not being considered. Female breasts are more closely related to reproduction than male breasts- and this bothers some people. What troubles me is that many refuse to even recognize that it can bother people for a reason that isn't completely baseless.
---
Overall, I'm frustrated with the definition argument because, while it is technically correct, in reality, it doesn't even matter. I could've called them "tasty tangy bitty lion chop targets". The term was arbitrary- used to have something to call them as opposed to being the argument in and of itself (as such an argument would be reliant upon the questionable assumption that such sexual organs carry the inniate properties that are being questioned). Rather, the argument was made on the conversative views, and they attacked the word choice instead of the concept.
In short, this whole "sexual organs" concept is more or less, "Your argument is invalid because you made a typo." More frustratingly, I am able to immediately point to the dictionary and prove that the analogous word was not typo'd.
quote:
ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about walking around and seeing women's nipples because of my personal reactions to them. If given enough time, I'm sure that I could stop the physical reaction.
I sort of doubt it'd bug me at this point in life- or good or ill. To me, I've seen enough, they're no longer interesting.
Watching me type, my slave brought up the point that she wouldn't like it, as it'd make girls feel more competative with eachother. Such an idea reminds me of the "school uniform" argument (standardizing dress prevents fashion competition) and the standard Middle-Eastern dress for women (which isn't a religious thing so much as something women wear to avoid being judged based off sexual appearances).
There's a lot to talk about it, really. This is sort of discussion I was hoping we could have in this thread instead of the whining, "[I don't like your word choice]!" that has been prevalent here.
|
|
|
|
