This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Women strip for 'Go Topless Day'
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
That wasn't the point of my post; the point was seeing her going around like that has made it that I don't notice it anymore, because it's a part of the scenery at this point. And as Skree clarified his views there, told you it was more about the nudity taboo then actually taking away sexual attraction to certain parts of the body.
I still don't understand your interpretation of him at all. I understand him fine now. He
is
talking about sexual attraction towards parts of the body.
Post by
Skreeran
As I stated, I'm not hoping for a future where everyone walks around naked. I'm just saying that I even assuming breasts are a sexual organ, I don't think there's anything inherently sexual about exposing ones sexual organs. The whole reason people immediately associate the sight of sexual organs with sex, is because they're only allowed to be seen in a sexual context. If people were only allowed to expose their mouths when they were giving oral sex, we'd get sprung if we saw someone walking around with an uncovered mouth, too.
I wonder how you would explain gay and lesbian attraction? I was raised to be attracted to men. All my friends were, and I was too, as much as a little girl really is sexually attracted to anybody. But eventually I realized that this "training" if you want to call it that was not exactly what I was feeling, and eventually that culminated it me realizing that I'm gay, discovering that once I sorted through all the emotional wreckage that I was attracted to women and consequently women parts. It seems that my attractions were completely contrary to the cultural mindset that was initially imposed on me.That's a good point, but I repeat that having an attraction to certain parts isn't what's culturally imposed, but rather the taboo against them.
As Adams' said, he's attracted to his girlfriend's breasts when she wears a tight outfit, but not the jogger's as she runs down the street. The immediate connotation of sex with bare breasts/buttocks/ankles/etc. is because they are only allowed to be revealed during sex.
A century ago, a woman's exposed ankles was the sign of a sexually promiscuous woman. Today, you can show buttcheeks on Spongebob. My entire point is not that breasts
aren't
sexual, but that the entire idea of having to cover up ones' sexual organs is an idea produced by culture, which is subject to changes inside a short time-span, rather than nature.
Post by
Adamsm
Because the taboo is tied into them; he said that we see exposed breasts more in sexual settings then we do as just out and about in the open(well again, depending on where you live); if the taboo was lifted, and seeing exposed breasts became normal, they'd fall under the same headings as asses, legs, hips and all the other things people are already attracted to.
Edit: And there's another clarification heh.
Post by
Jubilee
If people were only allowed to expose their mouths when they were giving oral sex, we'd get sprung if we saw someone walking around with an uncovered mouth
, too.
That's a good point, but I repeat that
having an attraction to certain parts isn't what's culturally imposed
, but rather the taboo against them.
That seems a contradiction as I'm reading it.
Are you or are you not saying that sexualizing uncovered mouths would make us attracted to them?
Post by
Adamsm
Still part of the taboo thing Jubilee; if mouths were only shown during sex, then seeing them uncovered would be a taboo issue.
Post by
Skreeran
If people were only allowed to expose their mouths when they were giving oral sex,
we'd get sprung
if we saw someone walking around with an uncovered mouth, too.
That's a good point, but I repeat that having an
attraction to certain parts
isn't what's culturally imposed, but rather the taboo against them.
That seems a contradiction as I'm reading it.I think you could say that there is a difference between a biological attraction to a body part and a learned attraction to a body part. You being attracted to breasts would indicate that there is a biological drive behind it (assuming that homosexuality is biologically driven), whereas as far as I can tell, a man being attracted to feet is a learned attraction.
But that's still unrelated to my point. My point is that a body part can be sexual without the very sight of it making one jump to sex. In the former of the two above statements, I made the point that when a body part is only exposed during sex, people naturally begin to associate the exposure of that body part with sex. When a body part is exposed all the time, it can still be sexually attractive (like legs) or used during sex (like the mouth) without making people's heartrate jump when they see it.
Post by
Squishalot
As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a point where it goes beyond just offending sensibilities and into actually causing pain.
I think the point at which it turns is too subjective to legislate.
As I stated, I'm not hoping for a future where everyone walks around naked.
Then why would you hope for a future where people walk around bare breasted?
Where do you draw the line?
Post by
Jubilee
I think you could say that there is a difference between a biological attraction to a body part and a learned attraction to a body part. You being attracted to breasts would indicate that there is a biological drive behind it (assuming that homosexuality is biologically driven), whereas as far as I can tell, a man being attracted to feet is a learned attraction.
But that's still unrelated to my point
I don't think it is unrelated to your point, which is why I brought it up =P
If there is a biological attraction, then I see it as perfectly reasonable for a society to demand that they be covered up.
Post by
Atik
I personally hope for a future where people can choose whether or not to have coverings.
But as I said, most would for a veriety of reasons...
Post by
Thror
I am not sure on what stance to pick for this issue. On one hand, when I see how the tribal people in Africa walk around mostly naked, I find it pretty normal (they have been brought up in this topic as a counter-argument), on the other, it feels somewhat indecent to adopt this into our society. In my country, we do not have laws that prohibit men from going topless, but personally, when I see a man idling in public without a shirt, I find it indecent. During sport activities, on the beach, during physical labour, it's normal, but a shirtless man just like that in the downtown? Rude.
I am also not really happy about how the current society got benevolent in showing as much of the female body as possible. Thanks to the media. I do not find it decent that I can see a woman in bikini on like every third poster and billboard. The female body has kind of became the universal ace of advertising. Not like bare chested muscular men are not being shown, but I see them quite a lot less, and men in g-strings are still a taboo, for instance.
Ugh, so hard to come to a final opinion. On one side I am sad about how the society has evolved into revealing the sexual organs. I wonder if it felt differently for the men in the past, to see a woman naked, than it feels now, and if that feeling wasn't worth preserving. On the other, it is true that "concealing sexual organs" might sound fine if you word it like that, but "women being forced to wear extra cloth in temperatures when it is very uncomfortable, while men aren't" sounds way differently. Honestly, I do not think my opinion should matter much in this. I do not like how it is often men that decide about what women can and can not do. If women want to walk around topless, and men can, perhaps they should be allowed to do so.
Post by
Skreeran
As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a point where it goes beyond just offending sensibilities and into actually causing pain.
I think the point at which it turns is too subjective to legislate.Hence me saying I'm rather divided on the legality issue.
As I stated, I'm not hoping for a future where everyone walks around naked.
Then why would you hope for a future where people walk around bare breasted?
Where do you draw the line?I'm not saying I'm hoping for a future where they
do
, but rather a future where they
can
.
It's like, I don't think people should smoke, but I think that they should be allowed to smoke, should they choose too (and aren't harming anyone else).
I don't think it is unrelated to your point, which is why I brought it up =P
If there is a biological attraction, then I see it as perfectly reasonable for a society to demand that they be covered up.Why?
Why do sexual organs need to be covered up?
Post by
Jubilee
I don't think it is unrelated to your point, which is why I brought it up =P
If there is a biological attraction, then I see it as perfectly reasonable for a society to demand that they be covered up.Why?
Why do sexual organs need to be covered up?
There is a difference between need and being perfectly reasonable.
totally not random
Post by
pezz
I've brought this point up in another thread, but what the laws allow =/= what private businesses/individuals will allow.
Businesses with 'no shirts, no shoes, no service' signs would keep them up, and they'd apply to women. Showing up to work without a top on would be horribly unprofessional, just as it is if a man does it, etc. I feel obliged to point out that even if toplessness is entirely legal, you probably won't see it much except in parks and joggers.
I don't like the argument that men should wear shirts too because some men are horribly ugly between the neck and waist. You're basically saying 'even if this is a fairly non-sexualized body part, if it's ugly enough then I don't want to see it.' I don't see the logical distinction between that and ugly people walking around with a bag over their head with eye-slits cut into it. That's a non-sexualized body part that's ugly enough that you don't want to see it, I'm sure.
I think Skree's untraining thing is that you can see a part of a body that you still think is sexual, without it distracting your attention. I really doubt
everyone
here who is attracted to women loses their train of thought and starts drooling
everytime
they see a low cut shirt or a very short skirt. Once a thing becomes commonplace enough you get used to it. Not in the sense that your significant other can come in with a seductive look on her face, a low cut shirt, and a short skirt, and you'll say 'DAMMIT WOMAN I HAVE NO TIME. STUMBLEUPON WON'T STUMBLE ITSELF.' But in the sense that you can choose to ignore such sights in public and focus on whatever you're actually doing, which most of us are perfectly capable of doing when faced with say, bikini-clad women selling us tax accountancy help which Thror mentioned.
Post by
Jubilee
I think Skree's untraining thing is that you can see a part of a body that you still think is sexual, without it distracting your attention. I really doubt
everyone
here who is attracted to women loses their train of thought and starts drooling
everytime
they see a low cut shirt or a very short skirt. Once a thing becomes commonplace enough you get used to it. Not in the sense that your significant other can come in with a seductive look on her face, a low cut shirt, and a short skirt, and you'll say 'DAMMIT WOMAN I HAVE NO TIME. STUMBLEUPON WON'T STUMBLE ITSELF.' But in the sense that you can choose to ignore such sights in public and focus on whatever you're actually doing, which most of us are perfectly capable of doing when faced with say, bikini-clad women selling us tax accountancy help which Thror mentioned.
Are dresses that show ankles still seductive and sexual and attractive now that we have "untrained" the idea that revealing any leg skin is sexual from our society? I don't think you have any basis for saying that the same couldn't happen with breasts.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Edit: Ack! I posted too slow. This post was in response to Jubilee.
First of all, I would definitely argue that there is leg skin you can reveal in a sexual fashion. I personally am a great fan of short skirts (on other people).
Second, such dresses can be very attractive, just not because you can see bones thinly covered by skin when they're worn.
I also don't think we'll stop finding certain body parts attractive if we're exposed to them more often. It just becomes easier to turn off your focus on them in non-sexual situations, and eventually it becomes hard to turn your focus on to them in non-sexual situations. This still only represents a problem if the highlight of your day is getting up three hours before you go to work so you can ogle all of the early morning joggers.
Post by
Jubilee
I also don't think we'll stop finding certain body parts attractive if we're exposed to them more often.
I said as much myself. I see breasts several times a day, that doesn't make me less attracted to them on the right person. My point is to try to show that the scenario is not going far enough. Not ogling is only the first phase of the social change. It's this social change that will in fact turn breasts into ankles, figuratively of course =)
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Aye Pezz. I find lips, eyes, buttocks (even in jeans), arousing depending on who they belong to. That's just me. What'll we do about that? All go around wearing burkas and shades all the time, or just leave me to keep my thoughts to myself?
If I go round and watch my neighbour's house because she often walks around in a nighty, or spend ages at the beach in the hope of seeing someone changing
, it's different, I'm the one with the issues, not them lol!
I'm scared.
Post by
Adamsm
I also don't think we'll stop finding certain body parts attractive if we're exposed to them more often.
I said as much myself. I see breasts several times a day, that doesn't make me less attracted to them on the right person. My point is to try to show that the scenario is not going far enough. Not ogling is only the first phase of the social change. It's this social change that will in fact turn breasts into ankles, figuratively of course =)
And that's what Skree has been saying the entire time.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.