16 Feb 2018, 4:57 am
Wolfram87 wrote:
Spyoon wrote:
There is no reliable proof for your hypothesis either ,even if it is the uncontroversial one that evertbody subscribes to .
Yes, medical science is very faith-based like that. Or y'know, not. The fact that you even refer to it an uncontroversial should tell you everything. What are you even trying to argue for here? Is the suggestion that biology is a thing just offensive to you?
I'm not trying to argue.
But I intended to discuss about thelack of a scientific basis to the notion that female nipples distract others attention inherently , therefore cencoring them is a totaly illogical practice.
Biology is anything but offensive to me Wolfram. It's just some pseudo-scientific stuff that mascarade aroud like ''uncontrovercial universal facts'' that drain my will to live
Wolfram87 wrote:
First, you want to present sources, you go get them yourself or don't bring them up. I'm not doing your work for you.
See whats going on here?You didn't provide sources for your claim(=female breast has sexual function) either. That is an opinion with little basis that is thrown around so often as if it was self evident . Have you ever heard of a blind experiment with a control group that provides proof to that claim? I haven't.
Wolfram87 wrote:
Second, evolution is a slow process and doesn't backpedal.
Of course it does. Take the evolution of cetaceans as a glaring example.
Wolfram87 wrote:
A nice butt is still a nice butt. What I meant was that since we now walk upright, our butts are no longer at a convenient eye level. Breasts are much more close at hand in that regard.
A far cry from the blazing red rear ends of other apes.
A far cry from the blazing red rear ends of other apes.
Its not about the height level. Your eyes are placed in such a way that you can freely observe something regardless of its proximity to your face
Practically human butts are an even more convenient measure since we are upright standing and walking. We may come to conclusions about somebody by the mere shape and form of a butt and an unstressed gait, we don't even need to display blazing red colors anymore.
Wolfram87 wrote:
Also, breasts do swell when a woman is aroused, and I'm fairly sure the butt does not.
You don't really want me to do your work for you either.
16 Feb 2018, 11:27 am
Spyoon wrote:
I'm not trying to argue.
But I intended to discuss about thelack of a scientific basis to the notion that female nipples distract others attention inherently , therefore cencoring them is a totaly illogical practice.
But I intended to discuss about thelack of a scientific basis to the notion that female nipples distract others attention inherently , therefore cencoring them is a totaly illogical practice.
Female nipples may not distract you...
But you are a female...
Ask any pubescent schoolboy whether or not female nipples and breasts are a source of distraction...
Are we, meaning you guys, really having this discussion?
Make your own experiment...
Line up a bunch of 13 year old boys and expose your boobies at them...
You will have your answer quicksmart there and then...
All you have to do is see who is or isn't giving you the salute...
Simples...
Read my lips:
Yes, they are a distraction...
But who the bloody hell cares...<sigh>
16 Feb 2018, 11:32 am
16 Feb 2018, 2:45 pm
Esmerelda Weatherwax wrote:
My attitude towards this is the same as my attitude towards wine - which is shared by a lot of folks outside the US, at least. Don't pretend it doesn't exist, let children learn about it as is appropriate to their age, learn to deal with the idea that your children are going to be sexual beings themselves, and a lot of problems can be avoided.
^ I certainly agree. Denying the existence of that would only make it worse... And pointlessly embarrassing.
16 Feb 2018, 4:27 pm
16 Feb 2018, 9:15 pm
Spyoon wrote:
I'm not trying to argue.
But I intended to discuss about thelack of a scientific basis to the notion that female nipples distract others attention inherently , therefore cencoring them is a totaly illogical practice.
Not sure I saw that claim being made. Saw a few that seemed to think people would react with unrelenting disgust at an exposed female nipple. Count me among the unconvinced.
Quote:
Biology is anything but offensive to me Wolfram. It's just some pseudo-scientific stuff that mascarade aroud like ''uncontrovercial universal facts'' that drain my will to live
Do feel free to be more specific in that regard.
Quote:
See whats going on here?You didn't provide sources for your claim(=female breast has sexual function) either. That is an opinion with little basis that is thrown around so often as if it was self evident . Have you ever heard of a blind experiment with a control group that provides proof to that claim? I haven't.
Do you accept that "attracting a sexual partner" counts as a sexual function? If you do, then I'm already right, and if you dont, I'll be forced to post PornHubs stats for top 10 searches by country and prove me right regardless.
Quote:
Of course it does. Take the evolution of cetaceans as a glaring example.
It absolutely doesn't, and the evolution of whales is an excellent example on how it doesn't. If sea creatures over millions of years evolved in such a way as to function as land creatures, that is evolution going forward. If said land creatures over time find themselves in environmental situations where increased fitness for sea dwelling would be beneficial for survival, then that would be selected for, even to the point where a creature is once again fully ocean dwelling. That would still be evolution going forward. Fitness is only ever measured in capacity to survive in a given environment. Using an old solution for a new problem isn't going backwards.
Evolution going backwards would be something like beneficial mutations previously selected for being deleted from the genome so that they can no longer be selected for.
Quote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
A nice butt is still a nice butt. What I meant was that since we now walk upright, our butts are no longer at a convenient eye level. Breasts are much more close at hand in that regard.
A far cry from the blazing red rear ends of other apes.
A far cry from the blazing red rear ends of other apes.
Quote:
Its not about the height level. Your eyes are placed in such a way that you can freely observe something regardless of its proximity to your face
Practically human butts are an even more convenient measure since we are upright standing and walking. We may come to conclusions about somebody by the mere shape and form of a butt and an unstressed gait, we don't even need to display blazing red colors anymore.
Practically human butts are an even more convenient measure since we are upright standing and walking. We may come to conclusions about somebody by the mere shape and form of a butt and an unstressed gait, we don't even need to display blazing red colors anymore.
Are you being deliberately daft? Because it kind of seems like you are being deliberately daft. Of course your eyes are placed so as to observe a maximum of things. Food sources. Possible threats to you and your tribe. Possible prey for you to hunt and feed you and yours with. Et cetera, et cetera.
The point about eye level was about convenience in social situations. It's kind of a big thing in humans and other great apes. Walking upright, while beneficial in many ways, makes observing rear ends less convenient. It's harder to tell at a glance (<-important) how sexually attractive and/or receptive a potential partner might be, if the butt is your go-to signifier. Enter: boobs!
Hell, I've even heard women approaching middle-age complain that they feel mildly insulted when men of any post-pubescent age don't do that subtle glancing down towards their cleavage, even if there no chance whatsoever of anything sexual happening between them. Just as a social acknowledgement of their sexuality.
Quote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
Also, breasts do swell when a woman is aroused, and I'm fairly sure the butt does not.
You don't really want me to do your work for you either.
[/quote]
I don't, but do you really want me to source the claim that womens butts don't swell when aroused?
17 Feb 2018, 8:12 am
Chronos wrote:
Saudi men apparently find shoulders so attractive, they are blacked out in imported western magazines. Afghani men find women's voices so attractive, and even the word "woman" so attractive, the Taliban has suggested that women shouldn't speak around men lest he rape her, and the word "woman" in some areas, has been changed to "spring".
Wow...I didn't know that...
And I thought I was peculiar...
Chronos wrote:
Perhaps many men will find anything sexual that they are told is sexual?
Well let us tell men that nipples aren't.
Well let us tell men that nipples aren't.
Why deny men the ability to be titillated?
There are so few things in this god awful world to appreciate...
BTW, the basis for considering something indecent is always there if one has a puritanical mindset...
I remember reading how in olden days a glimpse of stocking was considered shocking...
Now anything seems to go...
<sing>
Quote:
Times have changed,
And we've often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today,
Any shock they should try to stem,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.
And we've often rewound the clock,
Since the Puritans got a shock,
When they landed on Plymouth Rock.
If today,
Any shock they should try to stem,
'Stead of landing on Plymouth Rock,
Plymouth Rock would land on them.
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, God knows,
Anything Goes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd1w5tn040g
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
18 Feb 2018, 9:39 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,603
Location: the island of defective toy santas
18 Feb 2018, 9:42 pm
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
18 Feb 2018, 9:49 pm
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,105
Location: Adelaide, Australia
18 Feb 2018, 9:51 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,603
Location: the island of defective toy santas
18 Feb 2018, 9:52 pm
18 Feb 2018, 10:57 pm
RetroGamer87 wrote:
If we accept that the breasts are secondary sexual characteristics and inherently arousing, that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be covered.
Don't you just love dem double negatives?
If I was the Grand Poohbah, I would become a Cretan and make it mandatory that all breasts be shown in public!
Quote:
You’re probably familiar with the frescos and figurines from ancient Crete that depict well-endowed women in open-front tops that display their breasts for all to see. We may feel that the exposed breasts found throughout ancient Minoan art are provocative but the Minoans probably didn’t feel that way. Just as the Victorians found women’s legs to be terribly sexy simply because they were normally covered and hidden, we respond the same way to women’s breasts. But in Minoan society women frequently went topless, just as men did, so that would have been an ordinary sight, and of course ancient women nursed their babies so that would have been common and not provocative or controversial either. It would not have been sexy so much as normal. But when the priestesses of ancient Crete bared their breasts in a ritual setting, that had deeper meaning as well.
http://witchesandpagans.com/pagan-paths ... think.html
And consider this: French PM suggests naked breasts represent France better than a headscarf
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... ni-ban-row
Vive la France!
19 Feb 2018, 3:43 am
19 Feb 2018, 1:35 pm
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,603
Location: the island of defective toy santas
19 Feb 2018, 3:27 pm
their smarts gave them a long run, but sic transit Gloria. anyways, I remember back in the early 70s there was this thing shown on public tv called "steambath" that showed a naked [actress] Brenda Vaccaro [ 
] cavorting in a steambath. at the same time, on Monty Python, there were topless nipply people on-screen as well, and there were no complaints that I read about. I wonder what has made amuuuricans so puritanical in the oughts? 
