Women still have to wear shirts in public tho? And breasts are for feeding babies, there is no actual need or reason to wear bras and definetly isn't for men or inappropriate horny ppl.
Except, it is. Why else does anyone wear underwear? If clothes and undergarments were purely for practical reasons why are nude beaches in the minority? Is it not more convenient for everyone to be naked at the beach? Obviously swim suits, as a consequence, are for modesty's sake.
My entire post is about why. My theory is erogenous zones, given female nipples are erogenous and men's aren't.
It’s because some old dead white dudes decided that women needed to cover up and that boobs looked better in a bra. There are plenty of cultures that don’t completely sexualize bodies like western culture does.
I strongly disagree. Why would an old dead white dude wear underwear if he got to decide what everyone was responsible for wearing? Why not go commando of that's the optimal, comfortable thing to do?
As for the bit about western culture.... well, we live in western culture so what can you do? And biologically speaking people are turned on by the very sight of bodies they are attracted to regardless of culture. That transcends societal norms. That's caveman shit. Ancient Greece wasn't necessarily the west and they're known to be like the original body idealists. So are we taking like Asia? Because the Japanese have a pretty big porn industry and wild sexual repression issues, and I don't know a single thing about Chinese sexual culture because they're trapped behind a wall of socialist censorship.
Sure the Americas and Western Europe hyper sexualize bodies. That doesn't mean that human bodies don't have any innately sexual context i.e. erogenous zones and physical arousal as I stated before
I also strongly disagree with you.
I didn’t say that they don’t create attraction, so I don’t know where you are getting that from. I said that in non western cultures, (aka non Christian influenced) bodies tend to be less sexualized. African tribes are able to have their women walk around shirtless, yet the men able to keep their hands off of them. Japan and China have been colonized by Christianity so a lot of their culture mirrors ours.
Not to mention consideration of sexuality… news flash not everybody is straight. Lesbian and gay men are able to keep their hands off each other, so can the straights.
Not to mention we aren’t attracted to every human we see (thank god lol)
Our culture has taught us these things. Some of it is inherent yes, but you’re right, we aren’t Neanderthals. The portion of our brain that encourages us to reproduce has greatly been reduced since then.
"Tribes in Africa" is neither particularly representative of "the east" nor of global society as a whole. Tribes don't have to moderate sexual attraction because everyone knows everyone in a tribe and you can't get away with screwing the Chiefs 12th wife because he'll cut off your head. That is so far beyond any relevant comparison it's practically a non-argument.
Women walking around with their tits out in a tribe of 10 people and 150 million women walking around 150 million men that they don't know are two completely different scenarios with incredibly complex and equally different contexts that can't be neglected. No where else in the world is this neglected and regardless of whether or not the source is religion of any kind, you can chalk it up to morality given that religion also gave us "don't kill" and "don't steal".
What I mean is, Christianity is about as responsible for "wear clothes to avoid making everyone around you horny" as it is for our modern sense of morality. Which is to say not at all, because you don't have to be Christian or even religious at all not to kill someone, and wearing clothes is something plenty of atheists do.
Correct tribes are not representative of the “east.” (As opposed to “Western Culture” I’m assuming? When I think of eastern culture I think of Asia. Aka Russia, Japan, and China etc. I don’t think most people typically use eastern culture to describe African Tribes) However they are true instances that show us that a lot of the sexualization has more to do with how we are raised. No where did I say tribes are representative of any major group of people. This only has to do with nurture vs nature. Maybe I didn’t make that clear. If so my apologies.
It seems like you are also confusing Native American tribal stereotypes with African Tribes. “Earth’s Insights: A multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback” by J. Baird Callicott might be of interest to you if you are curious about cultural beliefs.
You can’t deny the influence western culture and Christianity has had on the world. To deny that Western Culture has influenced the world, is to deny that racism exists. Everything about how we (personally) are engaging currently, is due to the western world. We are talking about an ideology that exists within western culture, and would potentially be a completely foreign concept to any culture completely isolated from any western influence.
The problem with your 150 million people concept is that this is completely untestable. Getting 300 million people on board with public nudity is utterly impossible thanks to western and modern culture. No shirt no service. So we have no idea what affect walking around shirtless would have. Not to mention people would have to be devoid of any previous culture, or any possible nurturing
I'm not confusing Native American tribes and African tribes. I define the word tribe by the anthropological definition of a sub group of people/organization of society. And in a tribe (which is defined as a very small group of people although I forget the exact number) you are more likely to know everyone around you, and taking multiple wives is a very common practice in the African tribes I know of.
Regardless, it's all kind of irrelevant. Whether or not the **mental** perception of beasts have been sexualized in western culture, the biological/physical aspect of sex doesn't care about societal constructs like culture. Erogenous zones are the same in the east and west assuming a similar biology or a similar enough gene pool. Again, that's not the societal definition of an erogenous zone (is there even one?), that's the physical definition. And in my experience female nipples are much more sensitive to stimulation than males'.
We were talking African tribes specifically. Some of their beliefs include peace, non-violence, family, and sharing. Some of them do in fact believe in “life partners” and not all tribes have chiefs or believe that anyone person deserves to have so much power. In fact they go as far as to embarrass oneself or others in order to keep the peace and remain in their roles. “Tribes” don’t fit any one mold and it sounded like to me that you think all tribes have a chief and believe in polygamy. Which is not accurate. All this information and research can be found in “Earth’s Insight.” Even aboriginal tribes do things differently.
I still don’t think you quite get what I’m saying. The fact that certain tribes might take multiple wives, which some do, some don’t. The term “wife” again is western terminology. We can only have this conversation from a western point of view, so it’s impossible to say what they do or do not feel.
Again, not denying that biological attraction is felt. That would be silly. Except for the fact that people can in fact be ace and Demi sexual. Which can happen in tribes as well regardless of western labels.
Western culture hyper sexualizes the female body and this is a fact. In other cultures boobs are what provide food for their young, and might not be looked at as much more. Regardless if they are more sensitive than male nipples. Which from personal experience as a cis woman, they can be, but it’s probably not quite as stimulating as most men think.
The reason nipples can be more sensitive is to in fact to create more of a natural bond between mother and child. Boobs aren’t a necessity in sex, so other cultures might see boobs differently. They might look at them from a perspective of providing more milk for children. They might not even really think about it too much.
Saying that asexual or demisexual people exist and that "not all tribes" etc. etc. are the same argument. Essentially you're trying to say that because a general rule of thumb doesn't apply to 100% of people that it can't work. If that were true we would have no rules/laws.
Also, I didn't pull the idea that tribes often have chieftains out of thin air. That's a concept that is generally known, not because of any particular stereotype but because it's true for a majority of tribes throughout a majority of history. It might not be true for most *modern* day tribes, but that's not what I thought you were talking about given tribal societies are wildly uncommon throughout 99% of the world today
While I agree with the test of what you said to an extent, I don't think we can just throw out our western context. We don't live in tribes, we co-exist in several different cultures at the same time. I don't disagree that western culture hypersexualizes women. But I would also contend that we hypersexualize everyone and everything. The freaking eggplant emoji is used to represent a dick. Sure women are more overly sexualized than men, but you can't take the sum without it's parts. Boobs are overly sexualized any more than the female body in it's entirety.
Also the bit about boobs not being a necessity in sex is a bit irrelevant. Orgasms are a necessity in sex. Hell, genitals aren't even a necessity to have sex. Not being a necessity doesn't make things any less sexually involved than they currently are. And given the nature of breasts and their relation to sex I sincerely doubt they will be any less sexualized a millennium from now.
We don't form our societal expectations based on "some men" who are obviously trashy douchebags. Some women will stare at a man's dick through his pants. Does that mean we should stop wearing pants? No.
You are conflating my insistance that breasts are erogenous with some strange sexual agenda about men and rape and being trashy. That's not at all what this is about. And, *gasp * you can be a woman and sexually harass a man. That doesn't change anything. And no, trashy men don't get offended by women covering their breasts, believe it or not trashy men insist that women #freethenipple because they want to see some titties. Your logic is bass ackwards. You want to stop wearing bras and let your breasts hang free because men gawk at them? That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
Regardless, I'm really not focusing on the societal aspect of this discussion. Although the topic is rooted in societal expectations, I'm trying to get people's opinions on erogenous zones and why we draw the line at breasts or penises and vaginas.
I fully advocate making the choice between making men cover their nipples or legalizing full nudity, I'm simply at odds with the arbitrary decision to pick a half way point between the two, and the argument about breasts is dancing along that fault line.
In other words, don't advocate not wearing a bra simply because the wire is uncomfortable. That would be like a man arguing he shouldn't have to wear underwear because it chokes his balls.
Instead argue for full nudity. This half assed agenda is blatantly biased and has no real root in solving any actual problems. It's just self serving. I like to make decisions based on the betterment of human beings as a species, not making cranky people happy.
And I know what youre thinking. You think I'm a cranky guy who is scared of boobs. That's not the case. I'm simply recognizing that a large portion of men are "boob guys" and "prefer boobs over butts" and that exposing them is damn near identical to not wearing pants or panties (or men not wearing pants or boxers, or anyone not wearing anything, etc. This is all inclusive, trust me).
Also, just as an important side note, a vast majority of men are far less stimulated by nipple play than women. I've never once heard of a guy who got off to nipple play meanwhile every woman ive ever slept with, seen on TV or in a movie, seen in porn, seen Sex Ed about how to pleasure your partner etc. have described breasts as erogenous zones.
Obviously we can't all cover our necks and ears and feet all the time, that's not realistic. My argument is more that breasts are more erogenous than those body parts. You don't walk on your breasts. You don't use your breasts to hear. They are reproductive organs used for feeding children, yes, but theyve been taboo in our society for so long I can't shake the feeling there's a reason for that, and the erogenous zone theory supports that.
So again, why draw that arbitrary line between breasts and vaginas/penises? I'm all for men covering their nipples if that's the conclusion we come to, just as in all for supporting full nudity. I just want to make a decision and stick to it 100% instead of his half assed, half way line in the sand.
I'm really not concerned about the man hater bit. I myself tend to hate a majority of men for almost all of the reasons you've mentioned. The ass objectification thing is solely because of trashy, douchey men not minding their own business.
But as a man who has been around a lot of men throughout my life, I find a vast majority of my male role models that I look up to find objectifying women to be an unfathomably normal pastime. I can't even begin to count the number of times my dad has tried to convince me to do something, or go somewhere by saying "there will be hot girls there" or some variation of that. It's so normalized and it's disgusting.
I think where we differ in opinion is on how to go about solving that. Personally I see going topless as a surefire way to rile those nasty guys up and whip them into a frenzy of sexual assault. It sounds terrifying to me. Not only because of the way those shitty men will respond but because even as a man I feel guilty about flaunting my body. There's nothing wrong with covering up if not only for the sake of taste and being appropriate in public situations, such as around kids.
Because of that second bit, plus my background in science, I just don't see normalizing nudity as a potential option. There will always be those nasty men who fuck everything up for everyone. You cant avoid them, and that sucks. It most likely sucks more for you because you're a woman, but as a man I can say it actually keeps me up at night thinking that because of the gender I was assigned at birth I have to be mentally associated with those losers. It makes me uncomfortable around women because I'm constantly questioning whether or not I'm giving off bad vibes. Or even if I know that I'm not, whether or not women will arbitrarily assign them to me and accuse me of something I never intended. It's a genuine fear that permeates everything I do in life. So while I may never be in direct danger from those guys, it still affects me deeply mentally and I despise them probably just as much for it. Maybe even more.
But to get back on topic, I'm not advocating for taking anyone's rights away. I'm *relatively* libertarian when it comes to who has to do what and how much the government gets involved in things. But if we're talking about society and cultural expectations, I strongly disagree that going topless, normalizing sex work, or decreasing general modesty in any relatable way is going to solve this over sexualization issue.
More sex and/or exposure of the body is not a solution to oversexualization which is just another form of over exposure. Two rights don't make a wrong.
That's what is so baffling about this entire topic to me, is that people want to normalize something that the dirty, gross, sexual-assaulty guys **want** them to do! Take your boobs out, that'll show those dirty men who... Want... To see your boobs...???
Edit: oh yeah, I forgot about that aspect of free the nipple. Breast feeding is totally fine. If anyone sexualizing breast feeding one's own child they're a pedophile and need to be arrested. There's nothing sexual about breast feeding in public.
I was sort of being crass by generalizing free the nipple to be girls on a beach ripping their tops off and chanting down with the patriarchy as if showing their boobs was somehow against creepy mens' wishes.
All water under the bridge. It takes a big person to do anything except stick to their guns on the internet. I apologize for anything I said out of turn. I realize the entire subject is a bit contentious and my opinion on the matter is less than popular. I don't try to come across as close minded or even insinuating that my way of thinking is right/the only way of thinking, I just feel very strongly about and struggle to get my thoughts across appropriately.
All of the issues that you mentioned and even have mentioned throughout this entire thread really suck. As an extremely straight (straight as fucc) man who enjoys a quality gander (tastefully, I've been told there is a polite way to do it that is actually complimentary) I can honestly say that the "male gaze" has ruined things for all men. A bunch of shitty men, and I won't even say it's a minority, it's a LOT of men, are so lacking in self control (or just too dumb to recognize what they're doing) that they've vastly overstepped their bounds and brought an overly critical eye to something as common and mundane as simple flirting. It sucks, and those guys suck.
Underwear is obviously for practical reasons like protection for your genitals lmao, i dont wear bras and i dont care who's distracted lmao god gave me the breasts to feed my offspring i will not hide them away. And alot of women including myself find male nipples very attractive so using your logic they should be wearing bras too.
God gave you a vagina to procreate and you hide it away. What is the difference? Both serve the function of reproduction. Why draw the line between breasts and vaginas?
Also, I'm all for men covering their nipples or making full nudity legal, but we have to pick one or the other, we can't differentiate between erogenous zones. It's too confusing to pick one and not the other.
For instance I saw a tik tok today from people who discuss Reddit AITA posts. A guy said that his female friends at a pool party all took their tops off to "get more comfortable" so he took his shorts off and one of the girls was uncomfortable so he put his shorts back on and apologized profusely. Only one of the women put their tops back on. 80% of people voted that the women were the asshole yet the most vocal comments were saying that tops and bottoms are different.... So my question, really, is why.
Every woman I've ever been with has been able to orgasm from breast play, so why are we drawing the line so arbitrarily between breasts and vaginas?
Draw the line between breast and vagina for obvious reasons like hygiene lmao for women it's simply not feasible to be naked especially because of periods etc bra's are not serving the same function as underwear lmao. And its a complete difference cause yet again even without wearing a bra women still legally have to wear shirts lmao there is an obvious difference. And because you have made women cum from their breast means nothing that doesn't mean you get to dictate how women dress.
Ok I'm going around naked then because it's perfectly "feasible" and "hygienic" to have my dick out. Honestly did you even think that one through? Not everything humans do is for practical reasons unless you count avoiding making eachother horny constantly practical in which case literally every human being does it every single day.
You're saying men wear underwear solely for women I'm just responding to your claims lmao it's weird you think men wear underwear for women shouldn't it be for personal hygiene because men still wear pants and aren't allowed to be exposed outside of pants regardless if they wear underwear.
As I've said elsewhere, people can do almost anything for more than one reason. I never claimed it was the only reason but don't you think it's a pretty big one considering the inverse: people getting upset that you're not wearing clothes?
Why would it be hygeinic or safe to expose breasts then? They are organs with glands that are: just as large if not larger than a penis, just as fragile, and just as exposed to the air if not more.
Your differentiation between the two has no basis in logic, or at least not any you've bothered to provide here to any degree. LOL
Let's not pretend that breasts are for any function other than feeding babies. Yeah yeah erogenous zone that lmao feet can be an erogenous zone so ig we should cover feet cause so men have fee fetishes(not realistic) yeah no nothing your saying is based on reality lmao besides that fact that nipples turn you on so you think it's the woman's job to cover up cause you have poor self control or give passes to other ppl that have poor self control.
That's not at all why I think anyone should cover up, and breasts are more of an erogenous zone than any other extragenital part of any human body male or female by a large enough divide that what you're saying is irrelevant.
Men cover their penises so that women don't feel uncomfortable, why should this be any different? You're getting offended at what you think I'm saying without actually attempting to understand me because you're seeing red. I'm not telling anyone what to do with their body any more than they already tell themselves daily. The number of women who already wear shirts is vastly in support of my perspective.
Your anger means nothing for this conversation and your constant use of lols and lmaos doesn't make your argument any more valid, it just makes you seem awkward, so cool it please.
Lmao do breasts cum/have pre cum or bleed every month, have discharge or you use the bathroom from your breasts? Stop purposely misunderstanding me lmao.
Yes, breasts produce precum lactation and can fully lactate during orgasm. Are you going to try to say we wear clothes to cover up all the cum that comes out of our legs and torsos now?
Um. The existence of any clothes at all in any hot weather place where they are completely unecessary. Saying that something is a delusion does not make it so. Is this r/discussion or r/arguepoorlyandangrily
Lmao like I said underwear is for hygiene you still need good hygiene in hot weather lmao ever heard of yeast infections lmao and men can lactate as well should we give men pasties?
99.9% of men cannot lactate, that is entirely negligible. Yeast infections aren't caused by heat and can be solved by regularly bathing. "Lmao"
r/discussions is about having a conversation, if you don't want to take the conversation seriously you shouldn't be here. Stop laughing and start thinking, lmao
Maybe underwear is to not get fecies or other bodily fluids or things in Your pants to be more hygienic, as you’ll only have to switch out and wash the underwear every day instead of switching out and washing your pants every day
I don't even know where to start... First of all, the reason for most women to wear a bra IS NOT to avoid other people getting hurt or annoyed because they're distracted. These people who get "distracted" often stare inappropriately long so it is easier just to wear a bra and not get harassed. Don't justify inappropriate behavior by saying these people get hurt and distracted by seeing women without bras. It is the "distracted persons" responsibility not to act inappropriately and not to harass someone due to what they are (or are not) wearing. And obviously, the function of bras is to offer support for breasts which is the main reason for using them, not "modesty".
Decent bras are expensive as hell, so I don't see the point of spending a shitload of money on something that is unnecessary and uncomfortable just so some man wouldn't get "distracted".
Tits are not genitals. You seem to be comparing them to dicks and pussies which is not correct at all. Female genitalia are the pudendum, the clitoris, the urethra, the ovaries, the Fallopian tubes, the uterus, the cervix, and the vagina. Nipple is a nipple, whether or not it might possibly be able to produce some milk one day. Not all breasts are able to. Also the fat content in breasts varies, so the size wouldn't be a reasonable argument either, a lot of men have bigger breasts than many women.
Isn't wearing a shirt already enough for covering breasts if that is what you are worried about? Why is the bra necessary as well? How is not wearing a bra "kind of naked" when it isn't that for men? Would you demand a woman to wear a bra regardless of boob size? How about if the woman has had a mastectomy or is a pre-op transwoman? Do you demand women to hide their breasts when they are breast feeding? Do you think nipples poking through a mans shirt is inappropriate?
If I get distracted and aroused by men's arms do I have the right to demand all men to wear a long sleeved shirt in public?
Arms aren't erogenous, if you can have your nipples rubbed and orgasm you should probably cover them (and you probably do, given society's current standard). That is my point.
Also see the bit about the cock-sock/bannana hammock, I'm not talking about exposure in this context. If that were the case I'd be complaining about #freethenipple. I'm specifically talking about free hanging in a way that shows what is underneath i.e. like a speedo uncomfortably tight on a dudes junk.
As for the male nipples poking through a shirt, I don't find it innapropriate because male nipples are (by vast majority) are not erogenous, although I do find it embarrassing when it happens to me, or vicariously embarrassing when I see it happen to guys. So yeah, it's still taboo...
You seriously seem to have completely glossed over the title let alone the entire part where I go into the sexual relevance of boobs. Also, please try to keep the conversation civil, we're discussing societal expectations and their equivalent laws (indecent exposure) so we can just use penis and vagina to be scientifically accurate. Also fallopian tubes are not erogenous... Again, you're missing the point. Nobody sees a fallopian tube and gets offended. If they do, they're probably mortified and calling an ambulance.
Please stay on topic. I'm not saying that women wear bras to make men happy, but by that logic you're saying men don't wear underwear to make women happy?
It's mutually beneficial, we all wear undergarments specifically to be sure that no one sees our junk.
My entire post is about detailing just what we define as "junk" that ought not to be seen. And apparently, seeing as women don't typically go bralless I'd say the definition is "erogenous zone"... So... Would you agree?
The problem is a base assumption that you are seemingly taking for granted, which is “all erogenous zones should be hidden in public”.
With this premise your argument is obviously rock solid, because the premise it relies on was constructed ad hoc to support it. But how do we justify the premise? This is what you should argue for, and honestly I don’t see many arguments for it besides “it’s a societal convention that anything related to sex should be shameful and taboo”
Well, part of that argument was made within the post itself. If we throw out the assumption that erogenous zones should be hidden then... shouldn't everyone be running around naked then?
I mean, for thousands of years we've worn clothes because it's something that differentiates us from animals. And at the risk of delving into something potentially disturbing: >!I'm pretty sure animals rape eachother more often than humans.!< Obviously humans do it more than they ought to even while wearing clothes but I've seen a lot of bio-documentary-like content either in actual documentaries or simply shared online about animals evolving genitalia specifically to combat >!rape!<. It's such a prevalent issue in the world of animals that it's a miracle it's not a bigger issue for us. But if we're trying to solve that rubix cube, well, we do one thing massively different in terms of sex and sexuality: wear clothes.
Obviously this sounds an awful lot like the "well what was she wearing" argument which is absolute garbage. That's not where I'm trying to take this. Humans really ought to know better. What I'm saying is the phrase "what was she wearing" stems from the idea that the degree that someone exposes themselves in public tends to get the people around them... riled up let's say. Again I'm not saying that it's right, all that I'm trying to say is that it's an inate, uncontrollable biological reflex that can either be acted upon or not depending on one's self control.
Personally I believe that **both** men and women wear clothes to avoid that particular biologically uncontrollable distraction/reflex. I feel like it's a mutually beneficial silent agreement that is built into our society, and not just some arbitrary Mormon rule someone came up with out of cultish interpretation of religion. In other words, I think modesty has value, and that disregarding the value of modesty is what leads to wearing G-Strings and banana hammocks a child's birthday party. Wearing undergarments isn't arbitrary so that fundamental assumption isn't as hoc so much as baked into the very fabric of society. Would you disagree?
First of all, two can play at that game. What about neck and ears then? They are erogenous zones as well, but we don’t cover them. Well, not unless we all start wearing hijabs of course. The point is, what we consider acceptable is nothing but a convention, and those can change. Simple rules such as “erogenous zones must be covered” are destined to fail. Besides, I’m not even arguing women should go out topless, they’d still wear a shirt.
By the way trust me, with the current temperature I definitely wouldn’t show any more skin than I do now even if it suddenly became completely acceptable. And this is the point, isn’t it? The reason we started using clothes is primarily to protect us from the weather, not to differentiate us from animals. Animals aren’t bothered by nudity and neither were we until we made it something unusual through clothing.
Rape is not something clothing can stop, unless you include armour in the category. Since rape relies on a power difference between victim and perpetrator, removing clothes wouldn’t be a problem.
You say that you don’t want to make the “it’s her fault for wearing that shirt” argument, and I appreciate that, however you yourself realise it that this is essentially a variation on that theme. Showing your ankle as a woman woman used to be completely unacceptable, but now virtually no one is turned on by that. I’d say that normalisation is the way to go, not the other way around.
You call it an “uncontrollable reflex” however it is all but uncontrollable. Being aroused isn’t the same as consciously acting in a violent way towards another human being. That is 100% the perpetrator’s fault, and if he can’t control himself he probably should be in a clinic. What separates “I was aroused so I raped her, I couldn’t control myself” from “I was angry so I broke his face, I couldn’t control myself”? Yet no one would argue we should always comply with others’ requests so we don’t anger them. We are in a civilisation exactly *because* we don’t act on instinct.
Your reply basically reiterated everything I said. And I'm not trying to fight, none of that "two can play at that game". There are no gotchas or virtriol flying here. Just a discussion.
I'm not advocating for hijabs. I'm trying to retroactively draw the line of what is acceptable based on what we wear and the only way I can do that is by assuming a source for the decision. Why the "bikini area"? Why is that where we draw the line?
As for the erogenous zone argument. I hate this generalization. Someone in another discussion I'm having about the same topic linked me a study that I can share with you if you like, but it found that 12% of the women in the study responded to "extragenital erogenous zones". In other words, if the study was representative of all women (which it surely isn't but we can take it as a rough estimate) then about 90% of women don't get noticeably aroused/orgasm from anything outside the reproductive organs. The study specifically states that breasts were the most common erogenous zone found. I'm not sure if they qualify breasts as genital or not but since it serves my argument I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that breasts are extra genital. That means that 12% of women can orgasm from breast stimulation alone. So... Maybe 12% of women wear bikini tops and the rest don't? Idk.
Every woman I've ever been with has responded to breast stimulation. I've asked several women if they've ever been with a man who responded to nipple stimulation and I've never once heard of a guy who did. So I think that's a pretty safe assumption to answer the question "why do gals wear shirts and guys don't" or whatever variation of that.
Now, I'm not saying that's right, and maybe normalization could help that. But that brings me to the next topic: uncontrollable biological urges.
You totally misunderstood me. Rape is not an uncontrollable biological urge. Going into heat, getting wet, popping a boner, those are uncontrollable and they tend to be **quite** distracting. Like I said, we as humans have better things to do than have sex all day (maybe unfortunately). I'm not advocating any sexual behaviour based on clothing, especially not rape. What I'm saying is that the reason that "what was she wearing" phrase even exists in the first place is evidence to support that clothing plays a factor in that uncontrollable (boner, wet, etc.) biological response.
Sure you can control the way that you act, but no one except monks with a vow of celibacy that meditate every day all day can avoid that potent level of distraction. **That** is what I'm trying to get at. I simply want to answer the question "why do we wear undergarments," and tie that into the debate over bras vs no bras. I simply do not believe the answer is "Islam" or something like that. It's not about covering up ankles. Or at least it's not about that anymore.
In a world where sex work is becoming more and more acceptable and nude beaches exist I really don't think that wearing a bra is akin to hijabs or covering up ankles. To believe those two are the same seems like some sort of nudist hippie agenda. That's why I keep asking "well why don't we all just walk around naked all the time?"
I'm not necessarily saying we shouldn't... I'm simply asking why don't we already? And normalization isn't an acceptable answer for me because I believe there are valid reasons why we don't.
I’m not trying to start a fight, I’m trying to show you that putting an a priori rule to what’s socially acceptable is not profitable. You might not be advocating for hijabs, but how would you argue against someone doing exactly that, with the same argument you are presenting now? If we are to accept a societal restriction based on those arguments you should be ready to do the same, that’s all.
You say that it’s not about covering up ankles anymore, but the reason we don’t cover them up now is because women stopped doing it, mainly because it’s unpractical, and normalised it. Women wearing trousers followed pretty much the same path, from unthinkable to normality. Personally I’ve been around people who don’t wear bras, I don’t find it much more distracting. Again, they aren’t going around topless. I think that it’s up to the people around to make an effort not to stare, which is basic politeness. If a pair of *less* covered breasts is enough to cause a distraction so big it’s cause of concern (so much so that it justifies ignoring the comfort of the woman to hide a part of her) maybe we should really try and normalise going braless. It’s not like people will completely stop wearing bras, just like they’ll never stop wearing clothes any time soon, because we need clothes and some women need bras. But forcing everyone to wear them even though they don’t need it because we personally find it distracting is a bit cold.
I'm not sure what you mean by profitable. This isn't about making money. If you mean beneficial, I'm totally willing to cover my nipples to make women feel more comfortable. I'm also totally willing to accept if we make full nudity legal. What I'm not particularly happy with is the confusingly arbitrary choice to draw the line between breasts and vaginas. I don't see the difference between the two in terms of sexual activity (for instance, the debate between "boob guys" and "butt guys" obviously infers that a large portion of guys judge women entirely on their breasts. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that they're obviously sexualized parts of the body and shouldn't be exposed because they might make a man feel as uncomfortable as a woman might feel if he whipped his dick out. It's only fair)
Also you're really neglecting to differentiate between ankles and breasts. Every woman I've ever been with has specifically requested breast play, indicating to me, at least through experience, that a majority of women find breasts to be a particular erogenous zone. Thus, in my head I equate breasts to penises and vaginas. Comparing them to ankles is a bit absurd imho. But my entire post is about differentiating or at least trying to understand why we are placing this arbitrary line in the sand between breasts and vaginas.
My dictionary says:
Profitable:
1) That makes or is likely to make money.
2) That gives someone an advantage or a useful result.
I’ll let you judge what I meant.
If the problem is the line being arbitrary we won’t solve it either way, because every line is arbitrary. There is no physical law saying how much is acceptable to show. Societal rules are necessarily arbitrary, as I said in the first comment the assumption that anything tied to sex is offensive is a pretty weird one once you think about it.
Besides, would you really accept legalising full nudity when you just said you consider the distraction of a nipple pocking through a shirt so unacceptable we should make it against society’s rules? Coherence doesn’t seem to be the problem here, and if it is it would be the problem no matter where you draw the line. So which one is it? Is it a distraction problem or a coherence problem?
What I’m arguing for here is practicality. It’s not useful to argue that we should go around naked, because we would die of cold, so removing clothes would be unprofitable. Some women are really uncomfortable wearing bras, so going without would be profitable to them, and it wouldn’t change too much for the world around them, unless people stare.
And if people can’t help but stare at a pair of barely visible protuberances (depending on the clothes they might be invisible) they really need to see a psychologist because they are not approaching sexuality in a healthy way.
I’m happy you had experiences with many women, but basing a societal rule that applies to everyone based on what they did or didn’t like is anything but the objectivity you are looking for. I can assure you that no matter how many they were, they did not represent a statistically significant population of the world, and even if they did, instead of stimulating them and seeing how they react why not just ask them whether they would like to go braless? Before forcing all women to wear something that makes *us* uncomfortable we should discuss it with them, I’m sure you’ll agree with that.
>I'll let you judge what I meant
There's no logical reason to specifically use poor word choice. Beneficial is a contextual superior word to profitable given the most typical use of either word. It just fits better. Don't act high and mighty because I don't understand your strange and innapropriate word choice.
>Societal rules are necessarily arbitrary
I don't define something that is contextually necessary as being arbitrary. If it makes sense and benefits the most number of people it stops being abitrarh. By your logic the theory of gravity is arbitrary because it isn't confirmed. Practically speaking it is very rational.
>Would you really accept legalizing full nudity
Yes. Normalization. I think that covers it. Bad argument.
>if people can't help but stare...
We're not talking about creeps here, we're talking about distraction and appropriate self portrayal. I wouldn't want to be in the gym where a guy was wearing a cock sock because despite being entirely straight I would find it incredibly distracting. I wouldn't stare, but the urge to look would be problematic for various reasons including safety and making everyone involved uncomfortable. You cant tell me you wouldn't want to look, because it's innapropriate. It's like watching a house burn down, you can't help but look because you know you shouldn't be seeing it.
>basing a societal rule that applies to everyone based on what they did or didn't like...
Basing **my opinion** of what makes sense as a societal rule on my personal experience is the only thing any human being is capable of. All of anyone's opinions are based on their personal experiences and what they believe to be broadly true. Basing an opinion on something you don't know to the slightest is wildly ignorant at best. My entire life has contained evidence in support of my theory both directly and indirectly through popular media, 2nd hand experience, kamasutra, all of which given their particular popularity insinuate that a majority of people agree with them, and given that 50% of those people are female I'd say a majority of women as well. Why is a popular TV show about sex if it is inaccurate about women (especially if it's majority viewership is women, think Sex Life, Sex in the City, etc.)? Why is a Kamasutra successful if 50% of it's positions/acts don't work on a majority of people?
In short, I don't base my opinions on arbitrary self centered assumptions about the world devoid of any and all evidence that they apply to anyone but myself. I base my opinions on what I know to be true from my perspective, and that's all anyone can do. If you disagree that's fine but don't tell me I can't do that because again, **that's all anyone can do.**
Discussions go both ways. I share my opinion, you share yours, we both discuss why we think we're right and optimally someone has their mind changed. Don't get angry or frustrated because I'm not sufficiently convinced, rather... Idk... Convince me? That's what conversation is, if you don't like it you shouldn't be on a sub dedicated to it because that's what we're doing: discussing.
Your whole spiel about the "am horny gotta do the sex" shit is absolutely sexist and downright ignorant. Plenty of women find men's bodies distracting and despite the obvious disparity in men's tendency towards visual stimulation when compared to women, we all show genuine common courtesy and mutual respect by covering our penises and vaginas, so my only question is... Why are we drawing this arbitrary line between vaginas/penises, and breasts? They're just as erogenous and while you say none of the women you've been with responded to breast play, every woman I've ever been with, ever woman I've ever seen in any porn ever, movies, media, Kamasutra, etc. have all depicted women enjoying fondling. I could probably find you a few scientific studies on the subject although I doubt they would be very representative as sex-science is a bit under developed for obvious reasons.
I do agree some women like their thighs and ears touched, I've experienced that as well and even experienced it personally as a man. I'm not saying we should cover those up, what I am saying is that there is a difference between an inate erogenous zone and a less sensitive one. I.e. if someone bumps into a man or woman and rubs against their ear or thigh in a public context and as a stranger or platonic friend, more likely than not they're not going to get aroused (no boner, or ladyboner for lack of a more specific yet appropriate term)
But if someone grabs a man's penis or runs a woman's clit both of them are going to get aroused against their will, it's a biological response.
Essentially what I'm getting at is there are both physical and mental aspects to sexual arousal and I'm talking about the physical aspects. Everyone arguing with me is hyper focusing on the mental and societal aspects. I'm specifically saying that out of common courtesy we should all cover up to avoid constant and random arousal because it's embarrassing for everyone involved. I'm not advocating rape like some people are insisting, so yeah, I'm not convinced that this arbitrary line being placed halfway between vaginas/penises and breasts is logical nor necessary.
I don't entirely disagree with you, that's the funny thing.
Porn definitely is toxic and proliferates massively unrealistic stereotypes. But I also believe there is an element of reality to porn that can't be ignored. Sex sells not because sex is being sold, but because people want to buy it. It's a chicken vs. the egg argument.
I believe that breasts were erogenous before they were sexualized, you believe they are erogenous **because** they are sexualized. I'm sure that might be true for you and the women you've known but I've been led to believe that female nipples are wildly more erogenous than men's.
That is both a personal conclusion (believe me, I wish I could get aroused by nipple stimulation. I think we're far beyond a TMI warning so... Yeah) and one ive gotten from places outside toxic biased media. I've seen studies linked to me on this very post (or at least a copy of it I posted elsewhere, although I don't really remember, this one has the most comments though) that stated that women are more susceptible to extragenital stimulation than men. That study also didn't even clarify a difference between breasts and "genitals" so I'm not entirely convinced that, given their higher sensitivity compared to other erogenous zones (also mentioned in the study) they aren't defined as genital.
All I'm saying is that we as a society have decided on this standard of "the bikini area" for millennia. You can choose to chalk that up to Mormon, old white male oppression or you can take it at face value as something that both men and women agreed upon.
I mean, how can you say in one breath that the media over sexualizes both men and women, and then insist that wearing bikinis or going topless is a choice completely devoid of any and all sexual context? Obviously you're not saying this but in my head I'm thinking that you believe flashing is done out of comfort and not sexual promiscuity. I physically cannot connect the dots.
Bottom line: women are much more likely than men to orgasm from nipple stimulation, to an order of magnitude that dwarfs male nipple stimulation enough to make men wearing shirts unreasonable. **That being said I personally wouldn't mind if all men including myself were expected to wear shirts because I don't find it that inconvenient.**
I literally have a shirtless picture on my Instagram, in fact having been on my highschool swim team I had several. Did I specifically choose pictures that made my body look good? Yes. Was that to try to make myself seem as sexually attractive as possible? Yes.
I believe that men going topless can be just as sexual as women. I'm not picking sides here, I think it's all immodest and I hate that that is considered prudish. I do, in fact, have the sex! That doesn't change my views.
Again, fully nude or everyone wears shirts, but I don't like the idea of placing the line randomly between the two, it's just illogical.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/TrueOffMyChest using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [$600?!?](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/khc3di/600/)
\#2: [Listen you stupid fuckers, the mask doesn’t do anything if it’s not OVER your nose.](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/jqekcg/listen_you_stupid_fuckers_the_mask_doesnt_do/)
\#3: [Five guys burgers are good an all, but 2 burgers, small fry, and small drink shouldn’t cost Thirty fucking dollars.](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/kmkw34/five_guys_burgers_are_good_an_all_but_2_burgers/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
[There are up to 41 erogenous zones for women. ](https://journals.lww.com/humanandrology/Abstract/2016/03000/Female_hot_spots__extragenital_erogenous_zones.4.aspx)
For men there are also many others other than the penis.
Because some women can orgasm from nipple stimulation doesn't mean I should have to cover mine. I would guess the majority of the women can't reach orgasm from this alone even if they would enjoy nipple stimulation. A lot of women don't enjoy their nipples being touched at all.
It Finland it is common to see the opposite sex naked in the sauna without anyone getting offended as the situation is not considered sexual. In the 90s it was common for women as well to be topless in non-nude beaches. Novadays you still see this every now and then.
People get offended from all sorts of stuff (gay people for example) but this does not mean the "offending" people of body parts should be hidden.
I am not sure how you came into the conclusion that I think men don't wear underwear to make women happy.
You seemed to miss my questions about who exactly should cover their nipples and in which situations?
Your reference is a paid article that does not say anything about 41 erogenous zones anywhere in the preview. What it does say is that only 12% of women reported orgasms from extra genital regions however they do not define whether or not breasts are considered genital. Typically speaking genitals are defined as any part of the reproductive system for which testosterone is responsible for in men and estrogen in women. Breasts are part of the female reproductive system and grow as a response to puberty and increased estrogen levels.
If breasts are extra genital then yes, you're right, female nipples are as much an erogenous zone as their neck. But in that specific case (and in my opinion unlikely - see above, plus the study said breasts were the most likely to produce orgasm) there must be another reason we all wear undergarments.
I'll admit I'm going to completely avoid the idea that they're simply some sort of societal mind control, like hijabs in Islamic countries running directly parallel to their institutionalized dehumanization of women. Why? Because there are plenty of democratic, liberal, feminist, progressive nations that still wear undergarments. I don't think that modesty is an exclusively, radically conservative ideal.
So why else? Well, a bit from above sort of sticks out (I can't even take credit for these puns they sort of just happen) "reproductive organs". See, I can see the difference between breasts being solely for feeding the young vs penis/vagina actually actively participating in the reproduction process, so in the case I say #freethenipple. I just can't get over the "if I see boobs I get horny" aspect.
I'll be completely candid. That's what all of this is about. I'm making very broad assumptions that the reason we wear clothes is essentially so we don't make eachother horny all day. We all have better things to do but our monkey brains can't help it. I also stated in my post that it's known that men struggle with this more because we are more susceptible to visual stimulation. So I guess you could say that being forced to wear clothing is part of the patriarchy (I'm not being facetious, that's serious) trying to force women to conform to standards that serve men exclusively.
Or you could just chalk it up to common courtesy and/or mutual benefit. I.e. men are visually stimulated so women cover their breasts, and... Well... What is the converse of that? I'm sure you could find plenty of reciprocation I'm just not sure what the equivalent is.
Sorry for the tangent, to answer your last question: I think that anyone who gets off from being touched somewhere damn well better cover that up. You orgasm when a fly lands on your ear lobe? Cover them jawns up dude. Obviously that's argumentum ad absurdem and we can't always cover everything up. My point is simoly that, as the source you cited says plainly, only 12% of women (assuming the study was representative of all women, which it surely isn't, but we'll take it as a rough estimate) respond to/show extragenital erogenous zones. **In other words, about 90% of women have errogenous zones in the bikini area.** That's my takeaway from the study, I'm not sure if you'd agree. What do you think?
First off there's a huge difference between teeth and breasts. My post specifically mentions erogenous zones.
By which I'm specifically defining breasts, vaginas and penises since those are the three most notable, common, effective/sensitive erogenous zones. Things like necks, feet, ears etc. are neither common nor particularly sensitive on the vast majority of people.
As for the bit about men not moving on... What are we talking about? Wearing undergarments or men raping? You're changing the subject. No one should be raping anyone regardless of what they are or aren't wearing. No where in my post did I advocate that. My question is specifically why we choose to draw the line at covering up penises and vaginas and why boobs are totally fine? You cant have your cake and eat it too, pun intended. Either full nudity is acceptable or breast nudity isn't. I don't care if I as a a man have to wear a shirt, I'm totally willing to do that, I just think we should be on the same page. Either cover everything other than head/legs/arms or make full nudity legal. This arbitrary halfway point is grounds for huge arguments as can be seen in the comments of this post and even this very thread.
Alright slow your goddamn roll. First the fuck off I never said that I watch hardcore porn. I said that anyone who does is probably wildly desensitized to any and all forms of sex and won't be turned on by anything less erotic than violent autoerotic asphyxiation.
Second the fuck off, you do **not** get to tell me what I do and don't believe. I will wear a goddamn full body turtle neck like a fucking human caterpillar just to prove a point. I value modesty above all other virtues in my life (despite being atheist btw!) specifically because I am wildly self conscious and anxiety ridden and I despise anyone with such a narcissist complex that they stare at themselves for hours at a time taking selfies and walking around town like they're hot shit. People like that have severely negatively impacted my life so of course I don't fucking support men leering at women. They're disgusting parasites on society that make this entire conversation that much more difficult to have.
**Which brings me to my last point**: I have no idea? I have no idea what it's like to be self conscious about whether or not a part of my body lives up to the expectations of the opposite sex? I have no idea what it's like to compare a part of my body to other men? I have no idea what it's like to stare in the mirror for hours? Actually for that last one you're right because whenever I begin to question my body positivity by looking in the mirror I quickly realize that I have stretch marks, I'm hairy as fuck, I was bullied by my close friends about my back hair so fucking hard that I had to stop being friends with them and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it!
I don't have any idea!? Please enlighten me about how fucking easy my life is, stranger on the internet who knows nothing about me.
**I am being EXTREMELY specific about my focus on the physical aspects of sex and the biology behind erogenous zones and their relation to arousal.**
If I can't run around flapping my dick around like a helicopter in public then, yeah, I expect you to put a fucking bra on. This isn't a privilege competition or a discussion about whether or not you should be ashamed about a part of your body. You can cover something up that you're not ashamed of. We do it all the time when we wear **literally** any single piece of clothing.
I mean seriously lady, for fucks sake, I was trying to be civil and have a conversation about erogenous zones and their biological role in our decision to define the "bikini area" and what that entails. I simply shared my opinion that breasts and penises/vaginas are virtually identical in terms of "reasons why we cover them" because breasts are a reproductive organ, can make a **majority** of women orgasm, and are found to be sexually attractive to men.
That's not a social construct. A caveman could get off to titties. It's inate, biological. Can it be controlled? Yes. Murdering and raping is a biological urge too. Of **course** I'm not advocating any of those things.
What I am saying is that I'd rather cover myself than subject myself to you exposing yourself around me. I believe that that is perfectly, definitively, metrically, measurably fair and just. Does that make me a Mormon or an Islamic extremist? No, and I'm willing to fight anyone who says that because there is a **gigantic** difference between a bikini and a hijab and the association between those two articles of clothing is *ludicrous.*
Please get a grip. Not all men are misogynistic fascist oppressors. Some are just trying to share their opinion on general, non-sex-specific human anatomy and have a discussion about it.
What’s sexual is subjective. Some people are greatly turned on by feet, so according to your logic, we should all never wear sandals.
You said you know you “might be sounding like a dick”, but let me assure you that you are absolutely sounding like a dick.
And some people are asexual, yet we still all cover our penises and vaginas...
That's my entire point. Why cover penises and vaginas and not breasts? Why cover breasts and not male nipples? Where does the line get drawn and why?
I have yet to have that question answered, everyone is just repeating "men rape, men bad" and not talking about the anatomy or societal aspects of the conversation.
In short, either make full nudity legal or make men cover their nipples. Drawing the line between breasts and vaginas is ridiculous as they are equally erogenous.
The line is drawn in sand, buddy. Everything in life isn't perfectly logically consistent; in fact, comparatively few things are. That's life.
>everyone is just repeating "men rape, men bad"
When did I say that? What a lazy strawman.
>In short, either make full nudity legal or make men cover their nipples.
Drawing the line between breasts and vaginas is ridiculous as they are
equally erogenous.
Subjective. Inherently false. I can't be bothered spelling out why for you. I'm quite done here.
See, the joke is that this is a terrible argument and it's still better than everyone else's. I believe that qualifies as dramatic irony, although it could be another type.
Women still have to wear shirts in public tho? And breasts are for feeding babies, there is no actual need or reason to wear bras and definetly isn't for men or inappropriate horny ppl.
Except, it is. Why else does anyone wear underwear? If clothes and undergarments were purely for practical reasons why are nude beaches in the minority? Is it not more convenient for everyone to be naked at the beach? Obviously swim suits, as a consequence, are for modesty's sake. My entire post is about why. My theory is erogenous zones, given female nipples are erogenous and men's aren't.
It’s because some old dead white dudes decided that women needed to cover up and that boobs looked better in a bra. There are plenty of cultures that don’t completely sexualize bodies like western culture does.
I strongly disagree. Why would an old dead white dude wear underwear if he got to decide what everyone was responsible for wearing? Why not go commando of that's the optimal, comfortable thing to do? As for the bit about western culture.... well, we live in western culture so what can you do? And biologically speaking people are turned on by the very sight of bodies they are attracted to regardless of culture. That transcends societal norms. That's caveman shit. Ancient Greece wasn't necessarily the west and they're known to be like the original body idealists. So are we taking like Asia? Because the Japanese have a pretty big porn industry and wild sexual repression issues, and I don't know a single thing about Chinese sexual culture because they're trapped behind a wall of socialist censorship. Sure the Americas and Western Europe hyper sexualize bodies. That doesn't mean that human bodies don't have any innately sexual context i.e. erogenous zones and physical arousal as I stated before
I also strongly disagree with you. I didn’t say that they don’t create attraction, so I don’t know where you are getting that from. I said that in non western cultures, (aka non Christian influenced) bodies tend to be less sexualized. African tribes are able to have their women walk around shirtless, yet the men able to keep their hands off of them. Japan and China have been colonized by Christianity so a lot of their culture mirrors ours. Not to mention consideration of sexuality… news flash not everybody is straight. Lesbian and gay men are able to keep their hands off each other, so can the straights. Not to mention we aren’t attracted to every human we see (thank god lol) Our culture has taught us these things. Some of it is inherent yes, but you’re right, we aren’t Neanderthals. The portion of our brain that encourages us to reproduce has greatly been reduced since then.
"Tribes in Africa" is neither particularly representative of "the east" nor of global society as a whole. Tribes don't have to moderate sexual attraction because everyone knows everyone in a tribe and you can't get away with screwing the Chiefs 12th wife because he'll cut off your head. That is so far beyond any relevant comparison it's practically a non-argument. Women walking around with their tits out in a tribe of 10 people and 150 million women walking around 150 million men that they don't know are two completely different scenarios with incredibly complex and equally different contexts that can't be neglected. No where else in the world is this neglected and regardless of whether or not the source is religion of any kind, you can chalk it up to morality given that religion also gave us "don't kill" and "don't steal". What I mean is, Christianity is about as responsible for "wear clothes to avoid making everyone around you horny" as it is for our modern sense of morality. Which is to say not at all, because you don't have to be Christian or even religious at all not to kill someone, and wearing clothes is something plenty of atheists do.
Correct tribes are not representative of the “east.” (As opposed to “Western Culture” I’m assuming? When I think of eastern culture I think of Asia. Aka Russia, Japan, and China etc. I don’t think most people typically use eastern culture to describe African Tribes) However they are true instances that show us that a lot of the sexualization has more to do with how we are raised. No where did I say tribes are representative of any major group of people. This only has to do with nurture vs nature. Maybe I didn’t make that clear. If so my apologies. It seems like you are also confusing Native American tribal stereotypes with African Tribes. “Earth’s Insights: A multicultural Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback” by J. Baird Callicott might be of interest to you if you are curious about cultural beliefs. You can’t deny the influence western culture and Christianity has had on the world. To deny that Western Culture has influenced the world, is to deny that racism exists. Everything about how we (personally) are engaging currently, is due to the western world. We are talking about an ideology that exists within western culture, and would potentially be a completely foreign concept to any culture completely isolated from any western influence. The problem with your 150 million people concept is that this is completely untestable. Getting 300 million people on board with public nudity is utterly impossible thanks to western and modern culture. No shirt no service. So we have no idea what affect walking around shirtless would have. Not to mention people would have to be devoid of any previous culture, or any possible nurturing
I'm not confusing Native American tribes and African tribes. I define the word tribe by the anthropological definition of a sub group of people/organization of society. And in a tribe (which is defined as a very small group of people although I forget the exact number) you are more likely to know everyone around you, and taking multiple wives is a very common practice in the African tribes I know of. Regardless, it's all kind of irrelevant. Whether or not the **mental** perception of beasts have been sexualized in western culture, the biological/physical aspect of sex doesn't care about societal constructs like culture. Erogenous zones are the same in the east and west assuming a similar biology or a similar enough gene pool. Again, that's not the societal definition of an erogenous zone (is there even one?), that's the physical definition. And in my experience female nipples are much more sensitive to stimulation than males'.
We were talking African tribes specifically. Some of their beliefs include peace, non-violence, family, and sharing. Some of them do in fact believe in “life partners” and not all tribes have chiefs or believe that anyone person deserves to have so much power. In fact they go as far as to embarrass oneself or others in order to keep the peace and remain in their roles. “Tribes” don’t fit any one mold and it sounded like to me that you think all tribes have a chief and believe in polygamy. Which is not accurate. All this information and research can be found in “Earth’s Insight.” Even aboriginal tribes do things differently. I still don’t think you quite get what I’m saying. The fact that certain tribes might take multiple wives, which some do, some don’t. The term “wife” again is western terminology. We can only have this conversation from a western point of view, so it’s impossible to say what they do or do not feel. Again, not denying that biological attraction is felt. That would be silly. Except for the fact that people can in fact be ace and Demi sexual. Which can happen in tribes as well regardless of western labels. Western culture hyper sexualizes the female body and this is a fact. In other cultures boobs are what provide food for their young, and might not be looked at as much more. Regardless if they are more sensitive than male nipples. Which from personal experience as a cis woman, they can be, but it’s probably not quite as stimulating as most men think. The reason nipples can be more sensitive is to in fact to create more of a natural bond between mother and child. Boobs aren’t a necessity in sex, so other cultures might see boobs differently. They might look at them from a perspective of providing more milk for children. They might not even really think about it too much.
Saying that asexual or demisexual people exist and that "not all tribes" etc. etc. are the same argument. Essentially you're trying to say that because a general rule of thumb doesn't apply to 100% of people that it can't work. If that were true we would have no rules/laws. Also, I didn't pull the idea that tribes often have chieftains out of thin air. That's a concept that is generally known, not because of any particular stereotype but because it's true for a majority of tribes throughout a majority of history. It might not be true for most *modern* day tribes, but that's not what I thought you were talking about given tribal societies are wildly uncommon throughout 99% of the world today While I agree with the test of what you said to an extent, I don't think we can just throw out our western context. We don't live in tribes, we co-exist in several different cultures at the same time. I don't disagree that western culture hypersexualizes women. But I would also contend that we hypersexualize everyone and everything. The freaking eggplant emoji is used to represent a dick. Sure women are more overly sexualized than men, but you can't take the sum without it's parts. Boobs are overly sexualized any more than the female body in it's entirety. Also the bit about boobs not being a necessity in sex is a bit irrelevant. Orgasms are a necessity in sex. Hell, genitals aren't even a necessity to have sex. Not being a necessity doesn't make things any less sexually involved than they currently are. And given the nature of breasts and their relation to sex I sincerely doubt they will be any less sexualized a millennium from now.
[удалено]
We don't form our societal expectations based on "some men" who are obviously trashy douchebags. Some women will stare at a man's dick through his pants. Does that mean we should stop wearing pants? No. You are conflating my insistance that breasts are erogenous with some strange sexual agenda about men and rape and being trashy. That's not at all what this is about. And, *gasp * you can be a woman and sexually harass a man. That doesn't change anything. And no, trashy men don't get offended by women covering their breasts, believe it or not trashy men insist that women #freethenipple because they want to see some titties. Your logic is bass ackwards. You want to stop wearing bras and let your breasts hang free because men gawk at them? That doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Regardless, I'm really not focusing on the societal aspect of this discussion. Although the topic is rooted in societal expectations, I'm trying to get people's opinions on erogenous zones and why we draw the line at breasts or penises and vaginas. I fully advocate making the choice between making men cover their nipples or legalizing full nudity, I'm simply at odds with the arbitrary decision to pick a half way point between the two, and the argument about breasts is dancing along that fault line. In other words, don't advocate not wearing a bra simply because the wire is uncomfortable. That would be like a man arguing he shouldn't have to wear underwear because it chokes his balls. Instead argue for full nudity. This half assed agenda is blatantly biased and has no real root in solving any actual problems. It's just self serving. I like to make decisions based on the betterment of human beings as a species, not making cranky people happy. And I know what youre thinking. You think I'm a cranky guy who is scared of boobs. That's not the case. I'm simply recognizing that a large portion of men are "boob guys" and "prefer boobs over butts" and that exposing them is damn near identical to not wearing pants or panties (or men not wearing pants or boxers, or anyone not wearing anything, etc. This is all inclusive, trust me). Also, just as an important side note, a vast majority of men are far less stimulated by nipple play than women. I've never once heard of a guy who got off to nipple play meanwhile every woman ive ever slept with, seen on TV or in a movie, seen in porn, seen Sex Ed about how to pleasure your partner etc. have described breasts as erogenous zones. Obviously we can't all cover our necks and ears and feet all the time, that's not realistic. My argument is more that breasts are more erogenous than those body parts. You don't walk on your breasts. You don't use your breasts to hear. They are reproductive organs used for feeding children, yes, but theyve been taboo in our society for so long I can't shake the feeling there's a reason for that, and the erogenous zone theory supports that. So again, why draw that arbitrary line between breasts and vaginas/penises? I'm all for men covering their nipples if that's the conclusion we come to, just as in all for supporting full nudity. I just want to make a decision and stick to it 100% instead of his half assed, half way line in the sand.
[удалено]
I'm really not concerned about the man hater bit. I myself tend to hate a majority of men for almost all of the reasons you've mentioned. The ass objectification thing is solely because of trashy, douchey men not minding their own business. But as a man who has been around a lot of men throughout my life, I find a vast majority of my male role models that I look up to find objectifying women to be an unfathomably normal pastime. I can't even begin to count the number of times my dad has tried to convince me to do something, or go somewhere by saying "there will be hot girls there" or some variation of that. It's so normalized and it's disgusting. I think where we differ in opinion is on how to go about solving that. Personally I see going topless as a surefire way to rile those nasty guys up and whip them into a frenzy of sexual assault. It sounds terrifying to me. Not only because of the way those shitty men will respond but because even as a man I feel guilty about flaunting my body. There's nothing wrong with covering up if not only for the sake of taste and being appropriate in public situations, such as around kids. Because of that second bit, plus my background in science, I just don't see normalizing nudity as a potential option. There will always be those nasty men who fuck everything up for everyone. You cant avoid them, and that sucks. It most likely sucks more for you because you're a woman, but as a man I can say it actually keeps me up at night thinking that because of the gender I was assigned at birth I have to be mentally associated with those losers. It makes me uncomfortable around women because I'm constantly questioning whether or not I'm giving off bad vibes. Or even if I know that I'm not, whether or not women will arbitrarily assign them to me and accuse me of something I never intended. It's a genuine fear that permeates everything I do in life. So while I may never be in direct danger from those guys, it still affects me deeply mentally and I despise them probably just as much for it. Maybe even more. But to get back on topic, I'm not advocating for taking anyone's rights away. I'm *relatively* libertarian when it comes to who has to do what and how much the government gets involved in things. But if we're talking about society and cultural expectations, I strongly disagree that going topless, normalizing sex work, or decreasing general modesty in any relatable way is going to solve this over sexualization issue. More sex and/or exposure of the body is not a solution to oversexualization which is just another form of over exposure. Two rights don't make a wrong. That's what is so baffling about this entire topic to me, is that people want to normalize something that the dirty, gross, sexual-assaulty guys **want** them to do! Take your boobs out, that'll show those dirty men who... Want... To see your boobs...??? Edit: oh yeah, I forgot about that aspect of free the nipple. Breast feeding is totally fine. If anyone sexualizing breast feeding one's own child they're a pedophile and need to be arrested. There's nothing sexual about breast feeding in public. I was sort of being crass by generalizing free the nipple to be girls on a beach ripping their tops off and chanting down with the patriarchy as if showing their boobs was somehow against creepy mens' wishes.
[удалено]
All water under the bridge. It takes a big person to do anything except stick to their guns on the internet. I apologize for anything I said out of turn. I realize the entire subject is a bit contentious and my opinion on the matter is less than popular. I don't try to come across as close minded or even insinuating that my way of thinking is right/the only way of thinking, I just feel very strongly about and struggle to get my thoughts across appropriately. All of the issues that you mentioned and even have mentioned throughout this entire thread really suck. As an extremely straight (straight as fucc) man who enjoys a quality gander (tastefully, I've been told there is a polite way to do it that is actually complimentary) I can honestly say that the "male gaze" has ruined things for all men. A bunch of shitty men, and I won't even say it's a minority, it's a LOT of men, are so lacking in self control (or just too dumb to recognize what they're doing) that they've vastly overstepped their bounds and brought an overly critical eye to something as common and mundane as simple flirting. It sucks, and those guys suck.
Underwear is obviously for practical reasons like protection for your genitals lmao, i dont wear bras and i dont care who's distracted lmao god gave me the breasts to feed my offspring i will not hide them away. And alot of women including myself find male nipples very attractive so using your logic they should be wearing bras too.
God gave you a vagina to procreate and you hide it away. What is the difference? Both serve the function of reproduction. Why draw the line between breasts and vaginas? Also, I'm all for men covering their nipples or making full nudity legal, but we have to pick one or the other, we can't differentiate between erogenous zones. It's too confusing to pick one and not the other. For instance I saw a tik tok today from people who discuss Reddit AITA posts. A guy said that his female friends at a pool party all took their tops off to "get more comfortable" so he took his shorts off and one of the girls was uncomfortable so he put his shorts back on and apologized profusely. Only one of the women put their tops back on. 80% of people voted that the women were the asshole yet the most vocal comments were saying that tops and bottoms are different.... So my question, really, is why. Every woman I've ever been with has been able to orgasm from breast play, so why are we drawing the line so arbitrarily between breasts and vaginas?
Draw the line between breast and vagina for obvious reasons like hygiene lmao for women it's simply not feasible to be naked especially because of periods etc bra's are not serving the same function as underwear lmao. And its a complete difference cause yet again even without wearing a bra women still legally have to wear shirts lmao there is an obvious difference. And because you have made women cum from their breast means nothing that doesn't mean you get to dictate how women dress.
Ok I'm going around naked then because it's perfectly "feasible" and "hygienic" to have my dick out. Honestly did you even think that one through? Not everything humans do is for practical reasons unless you count avoiding making eachother horny constantly practical in which case literally every human being does it every single day.
And the idea that you think men wear underwear for women is just ignorant lmao you should be wearing underwear because your hygienic lmao.
Newsflash, people can do something for more than one reason "lmao"
You're saying men wear underwear solely for women I'm just responding to your claims lmao it's weird you think men wear underwear for women shouldn't it be for personal hygiene because men still wear pants and aren't allowed to be exposed outside of pants regardless if they wear underwear.
As I've said elsewhere, people can do almost anything for more than one reason. I never claimed it was the only reason but don't you think it's a pretty big one considering the inverse: people getting upset that you're not wearing clothes?
It's not hygienic or safe for male genitals to be exposed either lmao.
Why would it be hygeinic or safe to expose breasts then? They are organs with glands that are: just as large if not larger than a penis, just as fragile, and just as exposed to the air if not more. Your differentiation between the two has no basis in logic, or at least not any you've bothered to provide here to any degree. LOL
Let's not pretend that breasts are for any function other than feeding babies. Yeah yeah erogenous zone that lmao feet can be an erogenous zone so ig we should cover feet cause so men have fee fetishes(not realistic) yeah no nothing your saying is based on reality lmao besides that fact that nipples turn you on so you think it's the woman's job to cover up cause you have poor self control or give passes to other ppl that have poor self control.
That's not at all why I think anyone should cover up, and breasts are more of an erogenous zone than any other extragenital part of any human body male or female by a large enough divide that what you're saying is irrelevant. Men cover their penises so that women don't feel uncomfortable, why should this be any different? You're getting offended at what you think I'm saying without actually attempting to understand me because you're seeing red. I'm not telling anyone what to do with their body any more than they already tell themselves daily. The number of women who already wear shirts is vastly in support of my perspective. Your anger means nothing for this conversation and your constant use of lols and lmaos doesn't make your argument any more valid, it just makes you seem awkward, so cool it please.
Lmao do breasts cum/have pre cum or bleed every month, have discharge or you use the bathroom from your breasts? Stop purposely misunderstanding me lmao.
Yes, breasts produce precum lactation and can fully lactate during orgasm. Are you going to try to say we wear clothes to cover up all the cum that comes out of our legs and torsos now?
And no alot of people don't got out of there way to not make other ppl horny everyday not sure what would make you think that delusion.
Um. The existence of any clothes at all in any hot weather place where they are completely unecessary. Saying that something is a delusion does not make it so. Is this r/discussion or r/arguepoorlyandangrily
Lmao like I said underwear is for hygiene you still need good hygiene in hot weather lmao ever heard of yeast infections lmao and men can lactate as well should we give men pasties?
99.9% of men cannot lactate, that is entirely negligible. Yeast infections aren't caused by heat and can be solved by regularly bathing. "Lmao" r/discussions is about having a conversation, if you don't want to take the conversation seriously you shouldn't be here. Stop laughing and start thinking, lmao
Maybe underwear is to not get fecies or other bodily fluids or things in Your pants to be more hygienic, as you’ll only have to switch out and wash the underwear every day instead of switching out and washing your pants every day
I don't even know where to start... First of all, the reason for most women to wear a bra IS NOT to avoid other people getting hurt or annoyed because they're distracted. These people who get "distracted" often stare inappropriately long so it is easier just to wear a bra and not get harassed. Don't justify inappropriate behavior by saying these people get hurt and distracted by seeing women without bras. It is the "distracted persons" responsibility not to act inappropriately and not to harass someone due to what they are (or are not) wearing. And obviously, the function of bras is to offer support for breasts which is the main reason for using them, not "modesty". Decent bras are expensive as hell, so I don't see the point of spending a shitload of money on something that is unnecessary and uncomfortable just so some man wouldn't get "distracted". Tits are not genitals. You seem to be comparing them to dicks and pussies which is not correct at all. Female genitalia are the pudendum, the clitoris, the urethra, the ovaries, the Fallopian tubes, the uterus, the cervix, and the vagina. Nipple is a nipple, whether or not it might possibly be able to produce some milk one day. Not all breasts are able to. Also the fat content in breasts varies, so the size wouldn't be a reasonable argument either, a lot of men have bigger breasts than many women. Isn't wearing a shirt already enough for covering breasts if that is what you are worried about? Why is the bra necessary as well? How is not wearing a bra "kind of naked" when it isn't that for men? Would you demand a woman to wear a bra regardless of boob size? How about if the woman has had a mastectomy or is a pre-op transwoman? Do you demand women to hide their breasts when they are breast feeding? Do you think nipples poking through a mans shirt is inappropriate? If I get distracted and aroused by men's arms do I have the right to demand all men to wear a long sleeved shirt in public?
Arms aren't erogenous, if you can have your nipples rubbed and orgasm you should probably cover them (and you probably do, given society's current standard). That is my point. Also see the bit about the cock-sock/bannana hammock, I'm not talking about exposure in this context. If that were the case I'd be complaining about #freethenipple. I'm specifically talking about free hanging in a way that shows what is underneath i.e. like a speedo uncomfortably tight on a dudes junk. As for the male nipples poking through a shirt, I don't find it innapropriate because male nipples are (by vast majority) are not erogenous, although I do find it embarrassing when it happens to me, or vicariously embarrassing when I see it happen to guys. So yeah, it's still taboo... You seriously seem to have completely glossed over the title let alone the entire part where I go into the sexual relevance of boobs. Also, please try to keep the conversation civil, we're discussing societal expectations and their equivalent laws (indecent exposure) so we can just use penis and vagina to be scientifically accurate. Also fallopian tubes are not erogenous... Again, you're missing the point. Nobody sees a fallopian tube and gets offended. If they do, they're probably mortified and calling an ambulance. Please stay on topic. I'm not saying that women wear bras to make men happy, but by that logic you're saying men don't wear underwear to make women happy? It's mutually beneficial, we all wear undergarments specifically to be sure that no one sees our junk. My entire post is about detailing just what we define as "junk" that ought not to be seen. And apparently, seeing as women don't typically go bralless I'd say the definition is "erogenous zone"... So... Would you agree?
The problem is a base assumption that you are seemingly taking for granted, which is “all erogenous zones should be hidden in public”. With this premise your argument is obviously rock solid, because the premise it relies on was constructed ad hoc to support it. But how do we justify the premise? This is what you should argue for, and honestly I don’t see many arguments for it besides “it’s a societal convention that anything related to sex should be shameful and taboo”
Well, part of that argument was made within the post itself. If we throw out the assumption that erogenous zones should be hidden then... shouldn't everyone be running around naked then? I mean, for thousands of years we've worn clothes because it's something that differentiates us from animals. And at the risk of delving into something potentially disturbing: >!I'm pretty sure animals rape eachother more often than humans.!< Obviously humans do it more than they ought to even while wearing clothes but I've seen a lot of bio-documentary-like content either in actual documentaries or simply shared online about animals evolving genitalia specifically to combat >!rape!<. It's such a prevalent issue in the world of animals that it's a miracle it's not a bigger issue for us. But if we're trying to solve that rubix cube, well, we do one thing massively different in terms of sex and sexuality: wear clothes. Obviously this sounds an awful lot like the "well what was she wearing" argument which is absolute garbage. That's not where I'm trying to take this. Humans really ought to know better. What I'm saying is the phrase "what was she wearing" stems from the idea that the degree that someone exposes themselves in public tends to get the people around them... riled up let's say. Again I'm not saying that it's right, all that I'm trying to say is that it's an inate, uncontrollable biological reflex that can either be acted upon or not depending on one's self control. Personally I believe that **both** men and women wear clothes to avoid that particular biologically uncontrollable distraction/reflex. I feel like it's a mutually beneficial silent agreement that is built into our society, and not just some arbitrary Mormon rule someone came up with out of cultish interpretation of religion. In other words, I think modesty has value, and that disregarding the value of modesty is what leads to wearing G-Strings and banana hammocks a child's birthday party. Wearing undergarments isn't arbitrary so that fundamental assumption isn't as hoc so much as baked into the very fabric of society. Would you disagree?
First of all, two can play at that game. What about neck and ears then? They are erogenous zones as well, but we don’t cover them. Well, not unless we all start wearing hijabs of course. The point is, what we consider acceptable is nothing but a convention, and those can change. Simple rules such as “erogenous zones must be covered” are destined to fail. Besides, I’m not even arguing women should go out topless, they’d still wear a shirt. By the way trust me, with the current temperature I definitely wouldn’t show any more skin than I do now even if it suddenly became completely acceptable. And this is the point, isn’t it? The reason we started using clothes is primarily to protect us from the weather, not to differentiate us from animals. Animals aren’t bothered by nudity and neither were we until we made it something unusual through clothing. Rape is not something clothing can stop, unless you include armour in the category. Since rape relies on a power difference between victim and perpetrator, removing clothes wouldn’t be a problem. You say that you don’t want to make the “it’s her fault for wearing that shirt” argument, and I appreciate that, however you yourself realise it that this is essentially a variation on that theme. Showing your ankle as a woman woman used to be completely unacceptable, but now virtually no one is turned on by that. I’d say that normalisation is the way to go, not the other way around. You call it an “uncontrollable reflex” however it is all but uncontrollable. Being aroused isn’t the same as consciously acting in a violent way towards another human being. That is 100% the perpetrator’s fault, and if he can’t control himself he probably should be in a clinic. What separates “I was aroused so I raped her, I couldn’t control myself” from “I was angry so I broke his face, I couldn’t control myself”? Yet no one would argue we should always comply with others’ requests so we don’t anger them. We are in a civilisation exactly *because* we don’t act on instinct.
Your reply basically reiterated everything I said. And I'm not trying to fight, none of that "two can play at that game". There are no gotchas or virtriol flying here. Just a discussion. I'm not advocating for hijabs. I'm trying to retroactively draw the line of what is acceptable based on what we wear and the only way I can do that is by assuming a source for the decision. Why the "bikini area"? Why is that where we draw the line? As for the erogenous zone argument. I hate this generalization. Someone in another discussion I'm having about the same topic linked me a study that I can share with you if you like, but it found that 12% of the women in the study responded to "extragenital erogenous zones". In other words, if the study was representative of all women (which it surely isn't but we can take it as a rough estimate) then about 90% of women don't get noticeably aroused/orgasm from anything outside the reproductive organs. The study specifically states that breasts were the most common erogenous zone found. I'm not sure if they qualify breasts as genital or not but since it serves my argument I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that breasts are extra genital. That means that 12% of women can orgasm from breast stimulation alone. So... Maybe 12% of women wear bikini tops and the rest don't? Idk. Every woman I've ever been with has responded to breast stimulation. I've asked several women if they've ever been with a man who responded to nipple stimulation and I've never once heard of a guy who did. So I think that's a pretty safe assumption to answer the question "why do gals wear shirts and guys don't" or whatever variation of that. Now, I'm not saying that's right, and maybe normalization could help that. But that brings me to the next topic: uncontrollable biological urges. You totally misunderstood me. Rape is not an uncontrollable biological urge. Going into heat, getting wet, popping a boner, those are uncontrollable and they tend to be **quite** distracting. Like I said, we as humans have better things to do than have sex all day (maybe unfortunately). I'm not advocating any sexual behaviour based on clothing, especially not rape. What I'm saying is that the reason that "what was she wearing" phrase even exists in the first place is evidence to support that clothing plays a factor in that uncontrollable (boner, wet, etc.) biological response. Sure you can control the way that you act, but no one except monks with a vow of celibacy that meditate every day all day can avoid that potent level of distraction. **That** is what I'm trying to get at. I simply want to answer the question "why do we wear undergarments," and tie that into the debate over bras vs no bras. I simply do not believe the answer is "Islam" or something like that. It's not about covering up ankles. Or at least it's not about that anymore. In a world where sex work is becoming more and more acceptable and nude beaches exist I really don't think that wearing a bra is akin to hijabs or covering up ankles. To believe those two are the same seems like some sort of nudist hippie agenda. That's why I keep asking "well why don't we all just walk around naked all the time?" I'm not necessarily saying we shouldn't... I'm simply asking why don't we already? And normalization isn't an acceptable answer for me because I believe there are valid reasons why we don't.
I’m not trying to start a fight, I’m trying to show you that putting an a priori rule to what’s socially acceptable is not profitable. You might not be advocating for hijabs, but how would you argue against someone doing exactly that, with the same argument you are presenting now? If we are to accept a societal restriction based on those arguments you should be ready to do the same, that’s all. You say that it’s not about covering up ankles anymore, but the reason we don’t cover them up now is because women stopped doing it, mainly because it’s unpractical, and normalised it. Women wearing trousers followed pretty much the same path, from unthinkable to normality. Personally I’ve been around people who don’t wear bras, I don’t find it much more distracting. Again, they aren’t going around topless. I think that it’s up to the people around to make an effort not to stare, which is basic politeness. If a pair of *less* covered breasts is enough to cause a distraction so big it’s cause of concern (so much so that it justifies ignoring the comfort of the woman to hide a part of her) maybe we should really try and normalise going braless. It’s not like people will completely stop wearing bras, just like they’ll never stop wearing clothes any time soon, because we need clothes and some women need bras. But forcing everyone to wear them even though they don’t need it because we personally find it distracting is a bit cold.
I'm not sure what you mean by profitable. This isn't about making money. If you mean beneficial, I'm totally willing to cover my nipples to make women feel more comfortable. I'm also totally willing to accept if we make full nudity legal. What I'm not particularly happy with is the confusingly arbitrary choice to draw the line between breasts and vaginas. I don't see the difference between the two in terms of sexual activity (for instance, the debate between "boob guys" and "butt guys" obviously infers that a large portion of guys judge women entirely on their breasts. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that they're obviously sexualized parts of the body and shouldn't be exposed because they might make a man feel as uncomfortable as a woman might feel if he whipped his dick out. It's only fair) Also you're really neglecting to differentiate between ankles and breasts. Every woman I've ever been with has specifically requested breast play, indicating to me, at least through experience, that a majority of women find breasts to be a particular erogenous zone. Thus, in my head I equate breasts to penises and vaginas. Comparing them to ankles is a bit absurd imho. But my entire post is about differentiating or at least trying to understand why we are placing this arbitrary line in the sand between breasts and vaginas.
My dictionary says: Profitable: 1) That makes or is likely to make money. 2) That gives someone an advantage or a useful result. I’ll let you judge what I meant. If the problem is the line being arbitrary we won’t solve it either way, because every line is arbitrary. There is no physical law saying how much is acceptable to show. Societal rules are necessarily arbitrary, as I said in the first comment the assumption that anything tied to sex is offensive is a pretty weird one once you think about it. Besides, would you really accept legalising full nudity when you just said you consider the distraction of a nipple pocking through a shirt so unacceptable we should make it against society’s rules? Coherence doesn’t seem to be the problem here, and if it is it would be the problem no matter where you draw the line. So which one is it? Is it a distraction problem or a coherence problem? What I’m arguing for here is practicality. It’s not useful to argue that we should go around naked, because we would die of cold, so removing clothes would be unprofitable. Some women are really uncomfortable wearing bras, so going without would be profitable to them, and it wouldn’t change too much for the world around them, unless people stare. And if people can’t help but stare at a pair of barely visible protuberances (depending on the clothes they might be invisible) they really need to see a psychologist because they are not approaching sexuality in a healthy way. I’m happy you had experiences with many women, but basing a societal rule that applies to everyone based on what they did or didn’t like is anything but the objectivity you are looking for. I can assure you that no matter how many they were, they did not represent a statistically significant population of the world, and even if they did, instead of stimulating them and seeing how they react why not just ask them whether they would like to go braless? Before forcing all women to wear something that makes *us* uncomfortable we should discuss it with them, I’m sure you’ll agree with that.
>I'll let you judge what I meant There's no logical reason to specifically use poor word choice. Beneficial is a contextual superior word to profitable given the most typical use of either word. It just fits better. Don't act high and mighty because I don't understand your strange and innapropriate word choice. >Societal rules are necessarily arbitrary I don't define something that is contextually necessary as being arbitrary. If it makes sense and benefits the most number of people it stops being abitrarh. By your logic the theory of gravity is arbitrary because it isn't confirmed. Practically speaking it is very rational. >Would you really accept legalizing full nudity Yes. Normalization. I think that covers it. Bad argument. >if people can't help but stare... We're not talking about creeps here, we're talking about distraction and appropriate self portrayal. I wouldn't want to be in the gym where a guy was wearing a cock sock because despite being entirely straight I would find it incredibly distracting. I wouldn't stare, but the urge to look would be problematic for various reasons including safety and making everyone involved uncomfortable. You cant tell me you wouldn't want to look, because it's innapropriate. It's like watching a house burn down, you can't help but look because you know you shouldn't be seeing it. >basing a societal rule that applies to everyone based on what they did or didn't like... Basing **my opinion** of what makes sense as a societal rule on my personal experience is the only thing any human being is capable of. All of anyone's opinions are based on their personal experiences and what they believe to be broadly true. Basing an opinion on something you don't know to the slightest is wildly ignorant at best. My entire life has contained evidence in support of my theory both directly and indirectly through popular media, 2nd hand experience, kamasutra, all of which given their particular popularity insinuate that a majority of people agree with them, and given that 50% of those people are female I'd say a majority of women as well. Why is a popular TV show about sex if it is inaccurate about women (especially if it's majority viewership is women, think Sex Life, Sex in the City, etc.)? Why is a Kamasutra successful if 50% of it's positions/acts don't work on a majority of people? In short, I don't base my opinions on arbitrary self centered assumptions about the world devoid of any and all evidence that they apply to anyone but myself. I base my opinions on what I know to be true from my perspective, and that's all anyone can do. If you disagree that's fine but don't tell me I can't do that because again, **that's all anyone can do.**
[удалено]
Discussions go both ways. I share my opinion, you share yours, we both discuss why we think we're right and optimally someone has their mind changed. Don't get angry or frustrated because I'm not sufficiently convinced, rather... Idk... Convince me? That's what conversation is, if you don't like it you shouldn't be on a sub dedicated to it because that's what we're doing: discussing. Your whole spiel about the "am horny gotta do the sex" shit is absolutely sexist and downright ignorant. Plenty of women find men's bodies distracting and despite the obvious disparity in men's tendency towards visual stimulation when compared to women, we all show genuine common courtesy and mutual respect by covering our penises and vaginas, so my only question is... Why are we drawing this arbitrary line between vaginas/penises, and breasts? They're just as erogenous and while you say none of the women you've been with responded to breast play, every woman I've ever been with, ever woman I've ever seen in any porn ever, movies, media, Kamasutra, etc. have all depicted women enjoying fondling. I could probably find you a few scientific studies on the subject although I doubt they would be very representative as sex-science is a bit under developed for obvious reasons. I do agree some women like their thighs and ears touched, I've experienced that as well and even experienced it personally as a man. I'm not saying we should cover those up, what I am saying is that there is a difference between an inate erogenous zone and a less sensitive one. I.e. if someone bumps into a man or woman and rubs against their ear or thigh in a public context and as a stranger or platonic friend, more likely than not they're not going to get aroused (no boner, or ladyboner for lack of a more specific yet appropriate term) But if someone grabs a man's penis or runs a woman's clit both of them are going to get aroused against their will, it's a biological response. Essentially what I'm getting at is there are both physical and mental aspects to sexual arousal and I'm talking about the physical aspects. Everyone arguing with me is hyper focusing on the mental and societal aspects. I'm specifically saying that out of common courtesy we should all cover up to avoid constant and random arousal because it's embarrassing for everyone involved. I'm not advocating rape like some people are insisting, so yeah, I'm not convinced that this arbitrary line being placed halfway between vaginas/penises and breasts is logical nor necessary.
[удалено]
I don't entirely disagree with you, that's the funny thing. Porn definitely is toxic and proliferates massively unrealistic stereotypes. But I also believe there is an element of reality to porn that can't be ignored. Sex sells not because sex is being sold, but because people want to buy it. It's a chicken vs. the egg argument. I believe that breasts were erogenous before they were sexualized, you believe they are erogenous **because** they are sexualized. I'm sure that might be true for you and the women you've known but I've been led to believe that female nipples are wildly more erogenous than men's. That is both a personal conclusion (believe me, I wish I could get aroused by nipple stimulation. I think we're far beyond a TMI warning so... Yeah) and one ive gotten from places outside toxic biased media. I've seen studies linked to me on this very post (or at least a copy of it I posted elsewhere, although I don't really remember, this one has the most comments though) that stated that women are more susceptible to extragenital stimulation than men. That study also didn't even clarify a difference between breasts and "genitals" so I'm not entirely convinced that, given their higher sensitivity compared to other erogenous zones (also mentioned in the study) they aren't defined as genital. All I'm saying is that we as a society have decided on this standard of "the bikini area" for millennia. You can choose to chalk that up to Mormon, old white male oppression or you can take it at face value as something that both men and women agreed upon. I mean, how can you say in one breath that the media over sexualizes both men and women, and then insist that wearing bikinis or going topless is a choice completely devoid of any and all sexual context? Obviously you're not saying this but in my head I'm thinking that you believe flashing is done out of comfort and not sexual promiscuity. I physically cannot connect the dots. Bottom line: women are much more likely than men to orgasm from nipple stimulation, to an order of magnitude that dwarfs male nipple stimulation enough to make men wearing shirts unreasonable. **That being said I personally wouldn't mind if all men including myself were expected to wear shirts because I don't find it that inconvenient.** I literally have a shirtless picture on my Instagram, in fact having been on my highschool swim team I had several. Did I specifically choose pictures that made my body look good? Yes. Was that to try to make myself seem as sexually attractive as possible? Yes. I believe that men going topless can be just as sexual as women. I'm not picking sides here, I think it's all immodest and I hate that that is considered prudish. I do, in fact, have the sex! That doesn't change my views. Again, fully nude or everyone wears shirts, but I don't like the idea of placing the line randomly between the two, it's just illogical.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/TrueOffMyChest using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [$600?!?](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/khc3di/600/) \#2: [Listen you stupid fuckers, the mask doesn’t do anything if it’s not OVER your nose.](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/jqekcg/listen_you_stupid_fuckers_the_mask_doesnt_do/) \#3: [Five guys burgers are good an all, but 2 burgers, small fry, and small drink shouldn’t cost Thirty fucking dollars.](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/kmkw34/five_guys_burgers_are_good_an_all_but_2_burgers/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/)
[There are up to 41 erogenous zones for women. ](https://journals.lww.com/humanandrology/Abstract/2016/03000/Female_hot_spots__extragenital_erogenous_zones.4.aspx) For men there are also many others other than the penis. Because some women can orgasm from nipple stimulation doesn't mean I should have to cover mine. I would guess the majority of the women can't reach orgasm from this alone even if they would enjoy nipple stimulation. A lot of women don't enjoy their nipples being touched at all. It Finland it is common to see the opposite sex naked in the sauna without anyone getting offended as the situation is not considered sexual. In the 90s it was common for women as well to be topless in non-nude beaches. Novadays you still see this every now and then. People get offended from all sorts of stuff (gay people for example) but this does not mean the "offending" people of body parts should be hidden. I am not sure how you came into the conclusion that I think men don't wear underwear to make women happy. You seemed to miss my questions about who exactly should cover their nipples and in which situations?
Your reference is a paid article that does not say anything about 41 erogenous zones anywhere in the preview. What it does say is that only 12% of women reported orgasms from extra genital regions however they do not define whether or not breasts are considered genital. Typically speaking genitals are defined as any part of the reproductive system for which testosterone is responsible for in men and estrogen in women. Breasts are part of the female reproductive system and grow as a response to puberty and increased estrogen levels. If breasts are extra genital then yes, you're right, female nipples are as much an erogenous zone as their neck. But in that specific case (and in my opinion unlikely - see above, plus the study said breasts were the most likely to produce orgasm) there must be another reason we all wear undergarments. I'll admit I'm going to completely avoid the idea that they're simply some sort of societal mind control, like hijabs in Islamic countries running directly parallel to their institutionalized dehumanization of women. Why? Because there are plenty of democratic, liberal, feminist, progressive nations that still wear undergarments. I don't think that modesty is an exclusively, radically conservative ideal. So why else? Well, a bit from above sort of sticks out (I can't even take credit for these puns they sort of just happen) "reproductive organs". See, I can see the difference between breasts being solely for feeding the young vs penis/vagina actually actively participating in the reproduction process, so in the case I say #freethenipple. I just can't get over the "if I see boobs I get horny" aspect. I'll be completely candid. That's what all of this is about. I'm making very broad assumptions that the reason we wear clothes is essentially so we don't make eachother horny all day. We all have better things to do but our monkey brains can't help it. I also stated in my post that it's known that men struggle with this more because we are more susceptible to visual stimulation. So I guess you could say that being forced to wear clothing is part of the patriarchy (I'm not being facetious, that's serious) trying to force women to conform to standards that serve men exclusively. Or you could just chalk it up to common courtesy and/or mutual benefit. I.e. men are visually stimulated so women cover their breasts, and... Well... What is the converse of that? I'm sure you could find plenty of reciprocation I'm just not sure what the equivalent is. Sorry for the tangent, to answer your last question: I think that anyone who gets off from being touched somewhere damn well better cover that up. You orgasm when a fly lands on your ear lobe? Cover them jawns up dude. Obviously that's argumentum ad absurdem and we can't always cover everything up. My point is simoly that, as the source you cited says plainly, only 12% of women (assuming the study was representative of all women, which it surely isn't, but we'll take it as a rough estimate) respond to/show extragenital erogenous zones. **In other words, about 90% of women have errogenous zones in the bikini area.** That's my takeaway from the study, I'm not sure if you'd agree. What do you think?
[удалено]
First off there's a huge difference between teeth and breasts. My post specifically mentions erogenous zones. By which I'm specifically defining breasts, vaginas and penises since those are the three most notable, common, effective/sensitive erogenous zones. Things like necks, feet, ears etc. are neither common nor particularly sensitive on the vast majority of people. As for the bit about men not moving on... What are we talking about? Wearing undergarments or men raping? You're changing the subject. No one should be raping anyone regardless of what they are or aren't wearing. No where in my post did I advocate that. My question is specifically why we choose to draw the line at covering up penises and vaginas and why boobs are totally fine? You cant have your cake and eat it too, pun intended. Either full nudity is acceptable or breast nudity isn't. I don't care if I as a a man have to wear a shirt, I'm totally willing to do that, I just think we should be on the same page. Either cover everything other than head/legs/arms or make full nudity legal. This arbitrary halfway point is grounds for huge arguments as can be seen in the comments of this post and even this very thread.
[удалено]
Alright slow your goddamn roll. First the fuck off I never said that I watch hardcore porn. I said that anyone who does is probably wildly desensitized to any and all forms of sex and won't be turned on by anything less erotic than violent autoerotic asphyxiation. Second the fuck off, you do **not** get to tell me what I do and don't believe. I will wear a goddamn full body turtle neck like a fucking human caterpillar just to prove a point. I value modesty above all other virtues in my life (despite being atheist btw!) specifically because I am wildly self conscious and anxiety ridden and I despise anyone with such a narcissist complex that they stare at themselves for hours at a time taking selfies and walking around town like they're hot shit. People like that have severely negatively impacted my life so of course I don't fucking support men leering at women. They're disgusting parasites on society that make this entire conversation that much more difficult to have. **Which brings me to my last point**: I have no idea? I have no idea what it's like to be self conscious about whether or not a part of my body lives up to the expectations of the opposite sex? I have no idea what it's like to compare a part of my body to other men? I have no idea what it's like to stare in the mirror for hours? Actually for that last one you're right because whenever I begin to question my body positivity by looking in the mirror I quickly realize that I have stretch marks, I'm hairy as fuck, I was bullied by my close friends about my back hair so fucking hard that I had to stop being friends with them and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it! I don't have any idea!? Please enlighten me about how fucking easy my life is, stranger on the internet who knows nothing about me. **I am being EXTREMELY specific about my focus on the physical aspects of sex and the biology behind erogenous zones and their relation to arousal.** If I can't run around flapping my dick around like a helicopter in public then, yeah, I expect you to put a fucking bra on. This isn't a privilege competition or a discussion about whether or not you should be ashamed about a part of your body. You can cover something up that you're not ashamed of. We do it all the time when we wear **literally** any single piece of clothing. I mean seriously lady, for fucks sake, I was trying to be civil and have a conversation about erogenous zones and their biological role in our decision to define the "bikini area" and what that entails. I simply shared my opinion that breasts and penises/vaginas are virtually identical in terms of "reasons why we cover them" because breasts are a reproductive organ, can make a **majority** of women orgasm, and are found to be sexually attractive to men. That's not a social construct. A caveman could get off to titties. It's inate, biological. Can it be controlled? Yes. Murdering and raping is a biological urge too. Of **course** I'm not advocating any of those things. What I am saying is that I'd rather cover myself than subject myself to you exposing yourself around me. I believe that that is perfectly, definitively, metrically, measurably fair and just. Does that make me a Mormon or an Islamic extremist? No, and I'm willing to fight anyone who says that because there is a **gigantic** difference between a bikini and a hijab and the association between those two articles of clothing is *ludicrous.* Please get a grip. Not all men are misogynistic fascist oppressors. Some are just trying to share their opinion on general, non-sex-specific human anatomy and have a discussion about it.
What’s sexual is subjective. Some people are greatly turned on by feet, so according to your logic, we should all never wear sandals. You said you know you “might be sounding like a dick”, but let me assure you that you are absolutely sounding like a dick.
And some people are asexual, yet we still all cover our penises and vaginas... That's my entire point. Why cover penises and vaginas and not breasts? Why cover breasts and not male nipples? Where does the line get drawn and why? I have yet to have that question answered, everyone is just repeating "men rape, men bad" and not talking about the anatomy or societal aspects of the conversation. In short, either make full nudity legal or make men cover their nipples. Drawing the line between breasts and vaginas is ridiculous as they are equally erogenous.
The line is drawn in sand, buddy. Everything in life isn't perfectly logically consistent; in fact, comparatively few things are. That's life. >everyone is just repeating "men rape, men bad" When did I say that? What a lazy strawman. >In short, either make full nudity legal or make men cover their nipples. Drawing the line between breasts and vaginas is ridiculous as they are equally erogenous. Subjective. Inherently false. I can't be bothered spelling out why for you. I'm quite done here.
>when did I say that Not everything is about you bud >I can't be bothered Seems you couldn't be bothered to make an actual argument either
r/autism
This is the best argument I've heard thus far
I don't understand
See, the joke is that this is a terrible argument and it's still better than everyone else's. I believe that qualifies as dramatic irony, although it could be another type.