Topfree.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by wonderland

They aren't primary sex organs, no. But if you haven't discovered their secondary sexual characteristics, it's possible you're doing something wrong.

I know that they have secondary sexual characteristics. All I'm saying is that they are not sex organs. The very definition of secondary sexual characteristics precludes that. Otherwise, my goatee would be a sex organ as well, since facial hair is a secondary sexual characteristic.

When they call them "secondary sexual characteristics," they're not talking about sex as in "sexual intercourse." They're talking about sex as in "gender."

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

I know that they have secondary sexual characteristics. All I'm saying is that they are not sex organs. The very definition of secondary sexual characteristics precludes that. Otherwise, my goatee would be a sex organ as well, since facial hair is a secondary sexual characteristic.

When they call them "secondary sexual characteristics," they're not talking about sex as in "sexual intercourse." They're talking about sex as in "gender."

I think what wonderland means is that tits are erogenous zones, Beneath the Shadows.

[Godslayer Jillian]

As are the back of one's knees with many women (and men too, I suppose) are these people prohibited from wearing anything but pants?
And if the issue is about body parts that are related to sex, then what about the hands?
And why would we become so desensitized by the sole fact that it would become a commonality? I find a woman's neck very sensual, and that's one of the body parts that have been uncovered for the most time in history.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I think what wonderland means is that tits are erogenous zones, Beneath the Shadows.

Well, then, she's on an entirely different level of inaccuracy, then.

Still, though, men's nipples and chest can be considered erogenous zones as well. Some men get sexually stimulated when they have their nipples played with, just like some women, and some women get aroused by men with hairy chests. Should men also be forced to wear a top at the beach?

[wonderland]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

I know that they have secondary sexual characteristics. All I'm saying is that they are not sex organs. The very definition of secondary sexual characteristics precludes that. Otherwise, my goatee would be a sex organ as well, since facial hair is a secondary sexual characteristic.

When they call them "secondary sexual characteristics," they're not talking about sex as in "sexual intercourse." They're talking about sex as in "gender."

Does the fact that I used a social definition, rather than a textbook definition, in any way effect this thread or the point of my statement? Does the meaning of my statement change at all? If it does, and you're arguing that the direct and natural connection breasts have to sex is obscured by the fact that they are not biologically necessary for reproduction, then please elaborate. Breasts exist not only for feeding children, but also to attract and sexually arouse a mate; they are directly connected to sexual arousal in both partners (I somehow doubt you can say the same about your goatee). But if you've got a legitimate reason why that doesn't matter in this conversation, please share. If you don't, and you're merely harping on a detail that's contextually irrelevant... then I'm at a loss for response.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by wonderland

Does the fact that I used a social definition, rather than a textbook definition, in any way effect this thread or the point of my statement?

There is no "social definition" for "secondary sexual characteristics." There's only one definition. What you did was use the wrong term to describe something entirely different than what that term describes.

Does the meaning of my statement change at all? If it does, and you're arguing that the direct and natural connection breasts have to sex is obscured by the fact that they are not biologically necessary for reproduction, then please elaborate. Breasts exist not only for feeding children, but also to attract and sexually arouse a mate; they are directly connected to sexual arousal in both partners (I somehow doubt you can say the same about your goatee). But if you've got a legitimate reason why that doesn't matter in this conversation, please share. If you don't, and you're merely harping on a detail that's contextually irrelevant... then I'm at a loss for response.

But breasts don't attract and/or sexually arouse every potential partner. And I'm not talking about homosexuals, here. Not every straight man becomes attracted to or sexually aroused by breasts. These days is more likely that they would because some people put more sexual emphasis on breasts than they merit, but the fact of the matter is that breasts were seen in public in everyday settings they wouldn't be attached to sex as much. It would be commonplace, and men would look at breasts as just another part of the day.

They're not connected to sexuality because that's how it's been forever... they're connected to sexuality because we've made them that way.

[wonderland]

That's actually not true. Breasts are a display of sexual maturity, intended to attract and arouse a potential mate. They also respond visibly to arousal, becoming swollen, tender, and much more sensitive. It's not societal invention, it's biology, hence our inability to turn it off. Erogenous zones vary from person to person, and are largely socially constructed. Breasts are sexual organs people (or, at least people who like women) are naturally attracted to everywhere. Even societies where women do frequently go topless view breasts as sexual. There may be less of a visible reaction because the societal taboo isn't present... but it doesn't mean the sexual aspect is gone. Just that it's accepted.

You've also cycled back to my original point. Why the hell would you want to take a beautiful, sexy body part and turn it into an every day thing? The heightened sexuality of breasts is what makes them fun... why change that? It's silly.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by wonderland

That's actually not true. Breasts are a display of sexual maturity, intended to attract and arouse a potential mate.

There's a considerable difference between "display of sexual maturity" and "intended to attract and arouse." Displays of sexual maturity are the result of bodily changes gone through during puberty. Going back to my goatee, since I can grow facial hair, I obviously have gone through puberty, which means that I'm sexually mature. Like breasts, my goatee is a display of sexual maturity. It's like wearing a sign saying "I am a potential mate." Nothing more.

As for the intention of breasts, they are intended to feed offspring, and that's all.

They also respond visibly to arousal, becoming swollen, tender, and much more sensitive. It's not societal invention, it's biology, hence our inability to turn it off.

The same thing happens to men. Like I asked before in a response to gothicusmaximus, should men be forced to wear tops?

Erogenous zones vary from person to person, and are largely socially constructed.

And, despite what porn says, breasts aren't always an erogenous zone.

Breasts are sexual organs people (or, at least people who like women) are naturally attracted to everywhere. Even societies where women do frequently go topless view breasts as sexual. There may be less of a visible reaction because the societal taboo isn't present... but it doesn't mean the sexual aspect is gone. Just that it's accepted.

In societies where women go topless more often, when men look at their breasts they do so as a determination of how well the woman may be a mother to children. They think "Well, her breasts are quite large, she would do quite well feeding a child. Perhaps I should pursue her." They do not think "BOOBS!!! MUST FUCK!!!"

You've also cycled back to my original point. Why the hell would you want to take a beautiful, sexy body part and turn it into an every day thing? The heightened sexuality of breasts is what makes them fun... why change that? It's silly.

Everyday things may skill continue to be beautiful and sexy. My favorite part of a woman are her hips. These days you have women walking around with those horrid low-slung jeans that show off their butt crack and small shirts that stop above their navel (in other words, doing nothing to cover their hips up), and hips are now an everyday thing. And yet, I still find them sexy and beautiful. And someone who likes breasts will continue to find breasts sexy and beautiful regardless of whether they, too, become an everyday thing.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

As are the back of one's knees with many women (and men too, I suppose) are these people prohibited from wearing anything but pants?
And if the issue is about body parts that are related to sex, then what about the hands?
And why would we become so desensitized by the sole fact that it would become a commonality? I find a woman's neck very sensual, and that's one of the body parts that have been uncovered for the most time in history.

I was just clarifying what I thought wonderland meant, I wasn't saying we should cover up all of our erogenous zones.

Originally Posted by wonderland

Erogenous zones vary from person to person, and are largely socially constructed. Breasts are sexual organs people (or, at least people who like women) are naturally attracted to everywhere.

Erogenous zones are dictated by concentration of nerve endings, not society. I definitely do not feel good during a blowjob because I was indoctrinated to do so.
The reason breasts are regarded to be attractive in all cultures, and the reason the culture of a country such as ours, with a strong protestant and victorian tradition, developed such that to expose them in public is considered untasteful, probably has something to do with their erogenous nature- they're one of the most sensitive, and most pronounced, features of the female anatomy.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

And, despite what porn says, breasts aren't always an erogenous zone.

If this is true, only in very rare cases does the stimulation of a woman's breasts not elicit a sexual response.
I never said it was right to mandate that they be covered up, but the fact remains that boobs are extremely sensitive and extremely noticable. It's more analogous to your cock than your goatee, and that's probably why the conventions we're discussing developed.

[Zerachiel]

We've kind of whiped this thought out. No matter how much we argue about it, it's not going to do anything, any one of us can think of any possible reason, so there isn't exactly a point to bring it to a further purpose at this point...And y'know, quit argueing Ophelia. -_- It's nice you think certain things are dumb and what not...But keep it to yourself. >.> Point is, overtime people figured "Hey, it's cold, let's wear stuff over ourselves to keep us warm." eventually it got to the point I suppose certain places were cold all the time, and then you would never see it, then at that point they'd eventually be mandatory for certain reasons of certain people shoving things in places to certain people...People liked to stop that and make it harder so...Yeah. I think there are reasons as to why...We do wear clothes. You guys could always goto nudist colonies. Or protest, either or. And the whole...Man vs women's tits thing. >.> guys are attracted to women's tits, and majority of the time..Women are not attracted to man tits, they're attracted to something else. You can still show your belly because the majority of people aren't attracted to that.

[Xombie]

Err. I'm not sure it happened quite like that. Anyway, I personally am attracted to "bellies", so that generalization wasn't really necessary.

[Zerachiel]

I said majority, but it was an example. I'm sorry if I offended you. But yes, I know...It was an egsageration.

[Cicero]

I don't see what the big deal is about exposed boobs. Even if any laws against them were lifted, that doesn't mean every woman will immediately whip her top off. Even if a few decide to take advantage of that particular freedom, who the fuck cares? It's not going to hurt anyone (unless they don't put sunscreen on... sunburnt nipples - ouch!). In fact I think a few heterosexual men out there would rather appreciate the view - in the same way I appreciate the view of an attractive male specimen without a shirt on.

I reckon it would also help a lot of girls with the body image issues breasts so often create. The whole 'need to hide them' mentality really doesn't help people become comfortable with their bodies... At least in my experience.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Zerachiel

We've kind of whiped this thought out. No matter how much we argue about it, it's not going to do anything, any one of us can think of any possible reason, so there isn't exactly a point to bring it to a further purpose at this point...And y'know, quit argueing Ophelia. -_- It's nice you think certain things are dumb and what not...But keep it to yourself. >.> Point is, overtime people figured "Hey, it's cold, let's wear stuff over ourselves to keep us warm." eventually it got to the point I suppose certain places were cold all the time, and then you would never see it, then at that point they'd eventually be mandatory for certain reasons of certain people shoving things in places to certain people...People liked to stop that and make it harder so...Yeah. I think there are reasons as to why...We do wear clothes. You guys could always goto nudist colonies. Or protest, either or. And the whole...Man vs women's tits thing. >.> guys are attracted to women's tits, and majority of the time..Women are not attracted to man tits, they're attracted to something else. You can still show your belly because the majority of people aren't attracted to that.

Nah, I'm good.
Even if I weren't good, I wouldn't let someone with spelling as poor as yours make me even consider stopping anything.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Jesus fucking tits on ice, get over yourself.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Wormboy

In one state it defines nudity as exposed reproductive organs, in that state women can legally walk around naked, but men can't.

There are a few reasons it shouldn't be legal for women to walk around topless.

1) A girl who walks around topless is sending out a **** me signal.
2) At what age would this be allowed? Do you want to tell me it should be legal for twelve or thirteen or fourteen year old girls to walk around topless? Younger? Another **** me beacon.
3) Honestly, what would you gain by walking around topless? Comfort? Equality? You would lose the respect of many people. Honestly every other guy might ogle you, but you would have no respect from anyone.

Equality for the sake of Equality is just stupidity.

And people wonder why there's feminism. Wormboy, did it ever occur to you that maybe an individual should control their own actions? You sound like if girls go topless that all of a sudden men are going to go bonkers on them like some kind of sex buffet.

That logic is kinda bad. **** is very rarely a sexual thing. **** is about power to the one that does it most often.

But hey, I can control my actions. I can respect others weather they're clothed or naked. Hell, I must be some shinning example of humanity and male kind because apparently, I know how to keep my dick in my pants.

To all the nay sayers, I find your reasons, most of them, to be insulting on the grounds that you're assuming that most people's behaviors need to be controlled in some way.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Jesus fucking tits on ice, get over yourself.

I can't. Isn't it infuriating?

[ApothoKeri]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

And people wonder why there's feminism. Wormboy, did it ever occur to you that maybe an individual should control their own actions? You sound like if girls go topless that all of a sudden men are going to go bonkers on them like some kind of sex buffet.

That logic is kinda bad. **** is very rarely a sexual thing. **** is about power to the one that does it most often.

But hey, I can control my actions. I can respect others weather they're clothed or naked. Hell, I must be some shinning example of humanity and male kind because apparently, I know how to keep my dick in my pants.

To all the nay sayers, I find your reasons, most of them, to be insulting on the grounds that you're assuming that most people's behaviors need to be controlled in some way.

There is actually a lot going on in this thread that appears to be fairly insulting to men and to Americans. Some of it almost reads like "men are to dumb to do anything but walk around like gorillas on crack" or "Americans are too stupid to be able to handle what the rest of the western civilization has no problem with and has done for years."

I think many are selling your fellow people short. JMO

[Zerachiel]

Ugh...I noticed. >.> It's always someone elses fault isn't it? But I have to agree...-_- Please do get over yourself. You've started to lose the point of the thread, and now you're going on about being an annoyance. It's not so much as being mean, or infuriating, or just being a bitch...It's just annoying. Point is, it's not men's fault, or American's fault, that women don't do anything about this...I never hear of anyone trying to set things different, going out to make a difference about this. You always expect someone else to do it...

[korinna5555]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I can't. Isn't it infuriating?

It can be

But it's just the way you are, so I ♥ you anyway.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Zerachiel

Ugh...I noticed. >.> It's always someone elses fault isn't it? But I have to agree...-_- Please do get over yourself. You've started to lose the point of the thread, and now you're going on about being an annoyance. It's not so much as being mean, or infuriating, or just being a bitch...It's just annoying. Point is, it's not men's fault, or American's fault, that women don't do anything about this...I never hear of anyone trying to set things different, going out to make a difference about this. You always expect someone else to do it...

Who expects someone else to do something about it? And "going on about being an annoyance?" Yeah, I made one or two posts like that, and I'm not sorry. It's called having a conversation--people throw in non-sequiturs.

Which, my statements weren't, because they were still replies.
And, my favorite saying of all, IF YOU DON'T LIKE ME, IGNORE ME.
Don't bitch about a problem entirely within your power to fix.

[Beneath the Shadows]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I can't. Isn't it infuriating?

No. Just annoying.

[Lapin]

I still like you Ophelia. And I still think people should be able to wear (or not wear) whatever they please, no matter how much it offends.

Some guy staring at a girl's breasts? Big deal, I stare at guys' abs. It's not going to cause ****, and if someone can't keep their eyes in their head, he needs to learn self-control.

Really, people used to make the same fuss about women showing their legs in the flappers' time. Did they get over it? Yes. And before that, it was women allowing their ankles to show, and so on and so forth.

[lostintranslation]

There are many people in this world who are too immature to handle the sight of bare chested women in public places. You know the kind of people I'm talking about, the ones who still giggle at the words "boobies" and "bone". Many people argue that if women are allowed to strut about topless, why aren't men allowed to walk about without trunks. While there isn't complete equality for genders, it isn't because women aren't equal to men, or because men are immature, I do not believe either, nor do I have the right to pass any kind of mas judgment. I think what it comes down to is how the media and society exploits women and men alike. Ultimately, I think the subject of whether women should be allowed to go topless in public places is one which does not require immediate attention, and can be put off until other problems have been resolved, such as DARFAR, and the war in Iraq. I could be wrong though. Perhaps topless women do come before sparing innocent lives. Personally, I don't think so.