The Human Body

[Noir]

Simple thread is simple, and summed up in an image



So the question is thus - why should topless men be considered grand, but a topless women be considered wrong? (The point is even made by the fact that i delt it necessary to put a warning in the topic title, knowing it would only related to the female in the picture, kinda bizarre, no?)

Summed up image removed by Gunny. The topic can be discussed without visual aid.

[fj1200]

Good question. Need more examples of that which would be considered wrong however to make a fully informed decision.

[ConHog]

Good question. Need more examples of that which would be considered wrong however to make a fully informed decision.

what he said ^^^




but preferably the next pic will be of a woman.

[darin]

it's our puritan roots, I believe. It's stupid, frankly. Our country FINES a LOT of money for a partial female breast on TV (see Janet Jackson superbowl) because "The Poor KIDS watching the game, blah blah blah!" yet runs erectile dysfunction ads in the same show. Seems kids should be 'protected' from a breast because its sexual, yet limp-penis advertisements are okay? WTF?

[jimnyc]

How dare anyone insinuate there is "similarity" between man boobs and beautiful woman boobies! The picture has a woman lifting her arm which stretches her boobs and gives the illusion of them being smaller, and she seems a little petite and muscular in addition to that. Put that same guy side by side with a luscious pair of 36 C's and you'll see that they are completely different.

Oh, and I think it should be legal for women to go topless everywhere too!! :coffee:

[Shadow]

it's our puritan roots, I believe. It's stupid, frankly. Our country FINES a LOT of money for a partial female breast on TV (see Janet Jackson superbowl) because "The Poor KIDS watching the game, blah blah blah!" yet runs erectile dysfunction ads in the same show. Seems kids should be 'protected' from a breast because its sexual, yet limp-penis advertisements are okay? WTF?

I agree that it's stupid...but then we live in a society that likes to push the envelope and doesn't believe in moderation. If they didn't have rules about nudity and sex on TV...the industry would bombard us with nothing but nekkid visuals 24/7.

As for the penis dysfunction ads...hey it's your turn. They have been selling feminine hygiene and boob lifting products on TV for years...it's about time they addressed the male condition.

[gabosaurus]

it's our puritan roots, I believe. It's stupid, frankly. Our country FINES a LOT of money for a partial female breast on TV (see Janet Jackson superbowl) because "The Poor KIDS watching the game, blah blah blah!" yet runs erectile dysfunction ads in the same show. Seems kids should be 'protected' from a breast because its sexual, yet limp-penis advertisements are okay? WTF?

Thank you very much!! Anyone who has ever been to England or Europe known Americans are unduly puritanical. Look at movies. You can have 90 minutes of blood, gore and violence and still get your flick approved for general audiences. But throw a couple of boobs in there and it get restricted. Same with TV. You can show couple in bed, but if there are any body parts, the FCC gets thousands of complaints.

As for boobs, I think there are definitely cases where manboobs should be deemed unacceptable.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B9bvrEpQ2ww/TZddPjsLY1I/AAAAAAAABko/mWHhy6h65s0/s640/man-boobs.jpg

Addendum: Any resemblance of the guy in the pic and a certain DP staff member is purely coincidental! :cool: :cool:

[LuvRPgrl]

Thank you very much!! Anyone who has ever been to England or Europe known Americans are unduly puritanical. Look at movies. You can have 90 minutes of blood, gore and violence and still get your flick approved for general audiences. But throw a couple of boobs in there and it get restricted. Same with TV. You can show couple in bed, but if there are any body parts, the FCC gets thousands of complaints.

As for boobs, I think there are definitely cases where manboobs should be deemed unacceptable.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B9bvrEpQ2ww/TZddPjsLY1I/AAAAAAAABko/mWHhy6h65s0/s640/man-boobs.jpg

Addendum: Any resemblance of the guy in the pic and a certain DP staff member is purely coincidental! :cool: :cool:

How do you know thats a guy?

I wouldnt want to see women walking around topless, nor alot of it in movies, partlly because it isnt necessary in the movies, usually it adds NOTHING to the movie. And if you have to much exposure to it, then it no longer becomes a tantilizing part of sex.

[ConHog]

Thank you very much!! Anyone who has ever been to England or Europe known Americans are unduly puritanical. Look at movies. You can have 90 minutes of blood, gore and violence and still get your flick approved for general audiences. But throw a couple of boobs in there and it get restricted. Same with TV. You can show couple in bed, but if there are any body parts, the FCC gets thousands of complaints.

As for boobs, I think there are definitely cases where manboobs should be deemed unacceptable.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-B9bvrEpQ2ww/TZddPjsLY1I/AAAAAAAABko/mWHhy6h65s0/s640/man-boobs.jpg

Addendum: Any resemblance of the guy in the pic and a certain former DP staff member is purely coincidental! :cool: :cool:

I FIFY


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

On a board full of men who say they want nothing more than to see women's boobs, arguing with a straight face that there is no difference between men's and women's chests is pretty ridiculous. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

On a board full of men who say they want nothing more than to see women's boobs, arguing with a straight face that there is no difference between men's and women's chests is pretty ridiculous. :rolleyes:

I stated there is a difference, do I get to see your boobies as a prize? :laugh2::coffee:

[Abbey Marie]

I stated there is a difference, do I get to see your boobies as a prize? :laugh2::coffee:

No, but you do get mega-kudos for admitting the truth!

[jimnyc]

No, but you do get mega-kudos for admitting the truth!

I'm an honest perv!! :thumb:

[Abbey Marie]

I'm an honest perv!! :thumb:

:laugh2:

http://andrewsidea.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fasttimes3.png

[jimnyc]

Jeff Spicolli!! One of my favorite movies of all time. Loved when the pizza was delivered to the classroom with Mr. Hand!! :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Jeff Spicolli!! One of my favorite movies of all time. Loved when the pizza was delivered to the classroom with Mr. Hand!! :laugh2:

That was the funniest scene!

[Noir]

On a board full of men who say they want nothing more than to see women's boobs, arguing with a straight face that there is no difference between men's and women's chests is pretty ridiculous. :rolleyes:

But i'm being serious, what is the difference?

I mean, if you had two pics of a boob, say both c-cups, they are made of the same tissue, of the same parts, look the same etc, whats the difference other than the one you'd perceive by the knowledge that one belongs to a man, and another a woman?

Or, to argue the same but on a different level, what about a totally flat chested girl, wrong for her to be topless too?

[ConHog]

But i'm being serious, what is the difference?

I mean, if you had two pics of a boob, say both c-cups, they are made of the same tissue, of the same parts, look the same etc, whats the difference other than the one you'd perceive by the knowledge that one belongs to a man, and another a woman?

Or, to argue the same but on a different level, what about a totally flat chested girl, wrong for her to be topless too?

It IS different. For the simple reason that women's breasts are considered sexual organs while mens are not.

[Noir]

It IS different. For the simple reason that women's breasts are considered sexual organs while mens are not.

So if we don't consider them sexal organs, then they're not.

[jimnyc]

But i'm being serious, what is the difference?

I mean, if you had two pics of a boob, say both c-cups, they are made of the same tissue, of the same parts, look the same etc, whats the difference other than the one you'd perceive by the knowledge that one belongs to a man, and another a woman?

Or, to argue the same but on a different level, what about a totally flat chested girl, wrong for her to be topless too?

Women, hopefully, don't have hair around theirs? The shapes are TOTALLY different. If a woman has a C-cup, she most likely has nice boobs. If a man has a C-cup - he needs liposuction.

[Noir]

Women, hopefully, don't have hair around theirs? The shapes are TOTALLY different. If a woman has a C-cup, she most likely has nice boobs. If a man has a C-cup - he needs liposuction.

So because their isn't hair they must cover up? What about waxed men?

Also you could say much the same as many women who's have breast form that is caused by their weight as apse to their biology.

Also no ones yet mentioned flat-cheasted women in a reply.

[jimnyc]

So because their isn't hair they must cover up? What about waxed men?

Also you could say much the same as many women who's have breast form that is caused by their weight as apse to their biology.

Also no ones yet mentioned flat-cheasted women in a reply.

If anyone can look at man-boobs, side by side with women's boobs, and think they're the same, or identical - they are on a road to gayness. Seriously, Noir, go to google and look up women's breasts, if you think a bunch of men are running around that look just like that - then you live in LA LA land.

[Noir]

If anyone can look at man-boobs, side by side with women's boobs, and think they're the same, or identical - they are on a road to gayness. Seriously, Noir, go to google and look up women's breasts, if you think a bunch of men are running around that look just like that - then you live in LA LA land.

So it all comes down to wether or not you think they are attractive to look at?

In any case, you still haven't replied to the question over flat chested women

[ConHog]

If anyone can look at man-boobs, side by side with women's boobs, and think they're the same, or identical - they are on a road to gayness. Seriously, Noir, go to google and look up women's breasts, if you think a bunch of men are running around that look just like that - then you live in LA LA land.

Actually, not even gay men find man boobs attractive. Ever notice that most gays are thin? LOL

[jimnyc]

So it all comes down to wether or not you think they are attractive to look at?

In any case, you still haven't replied to the question over flat chested women

Even flat chested women look better than flat chested men, or any man type of boobs.

Seriously, WHY in the world would you be trying to compare the 2? If they're so similar to you, would you like to have an occasional man boob in your mouth instead of your girlfriends?

This thread is like blasphemy to a boobie lover like myself. Cease your comparisons, say 3 hail mary's and go in peace! :coffee:

[Noir]

Even flat chested women look better than flat chested men, or any man type of boobs.

Seriously, WHY in the world would you be trying to compare the 2? If they're so similar to you, would you like to have an occasional man boob in your mouth instead of your girlfriends?

This thread is like blasphemy to a boobie lover like myself. Cease your comparisons, say 3 hail mary's and go in peace! :coffee:

I'm sure there are plenty of women who would think flat chested men look better than flat chested women, yet one is illegal in a public place, kinda weird no?

[jimnyc]

I'm sure there are plenty of women who would think flat chested men look better than flat chested women, yet one is illegal in a public place, kinda weird no?

Not at all. 50,000 men can walk down the middle of 5th avenue in NYC and it would barely garner attention. Send just ONE woman with 36C's down the same road and you'll have all out chaos. Men are fro mars, women from venus, or some shit like that I read. We are different, look different, smell different, and act different (that and men can't control themselves!)

[pegwinn]

it's our puritan roots, I believe. It's stupid, frankly. Our country FINES a LOT of money for a partial female breast on TV (see Janet Jackson superbowl) because "The Poor KIDS watching the game, blah blah blah!" yet runs erectile dysfunction ads in the same show. Seems kids should be 'protected' from a breast because its sexual, yet limp-penis advertisements are okay? WTF?

It's an advertising conspiracy. If there were more wardrobe malfunctions allowed, there would be less need to sell lil blue pills.

[Noir]

Not at all. 50,000 men can walk down the middle of 5th avenue in NYC and it would barely garner attention. Send just ONE woman with 36C's down the same road and you'll have all out chaos. Men are fro mars, women from venus, or some shit like that I read. We are different, look different, smell different, and act different (that and men can't control themselves!)

Only because we make it taboo through social engineering. I mean you need only look to are bearded and veily friends in the middle-east, who would say chaos would be cause by a women wearing shorts and a top that dared show cleavage, to see that your reply only highlights the cause of the problem.

[Abbey Marie]

Whether it is via social engineering, or some deeper biological impetus, it is what it is. Men will never see women's breast as the same as their own. Why would you want them to, anyway?

[Noir]

Whether it is via social engineering, or some deeper biological impetus, it is what it is. Men will never see women's breast as the same as their own. Why would you want them to, anyway?

Because it leads to the sigmatisation of women for no other reason than they are a woman and that it is in societies interests too subject them to it for both (archaic) social and economic reasons.

edit- also, it teaches us to be ashamed of our own bodies, men and women.

[LuvRPgrl]

Because it leads to the sigmatisation of women for no other reason than they are a woman and that it is in societies interests too subject them to it for both (archaic) social and economic reasons.

edit- also, it teaches us to be ashamed of our own bodies, men and women.

You're thinking too much Noir.

[Noir]

You're thinking too much Noir.

I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.

[ConHog]

Because it leads to the sigmatisation of women for no other reason than they are a woman and that it is in societies interests too subject them to it for both (archaic) social and economic reasons.

edit- also, it teaches us to be ashamed of our own bodies, men and women.

Good grief, do you really want your girl to be walking around topless? I sure don't want my wife doing so.

[Noir]

Good grief, do you really want your girl to be walking around topless? I sure don't want my wife doing so.

I wouldn't mind, but weather i would want it or not is not of any relevence (i don't much like the idea of mt dad running around topless etc)

What is of relevance is how remarkably sexists a law can be, criminalising someone based only on their sex.

[ConHog]

I wouldn't mind, but weather i would want it or not is not of any relevence (i don't much like the idea of mt dad running around topless etc)

What is of relevance is how remarkably sexists a law can be, criminalising someone based only on their sex.

I wouldn't call it remarkably sexist.

[Noir]

I wouldn't call it remarkably sexist.

The law is based totally on the sex of the person.
Men can, women can't.
Remarkably sexist.

[ConHog]

The law is based totally on the sex of the person.
Men can, women can't.
Remarkably sexist.

whatever, you're wrong, a man with woman boobs couldn't either.

[Noir]

whatever, you're wrong, a man with woman boobs couldn't either.

*

[ConHog]

Simple test is simple, legal or not?
(click to enlarge)

2874

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWw

ILLEGAL, male or female.

[Noir]

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWw

ILLEGAL, male or female.

Not by the law, by the law the woman who's breasts those would be arrested for walking down the street with them uncovered, but a man who would not look too dissimilar would be just fine.
that is a problem imo.

[ConHog]

Not by the law, by the law the woman who's breasts those would be arrested for walking down the street with them uncovered, but a man who would not look too dissimilar would be just fine.
that is a problem imo.

Arrested?I doubt it , unless they refused to leave/put a shirt on or whatever.

[Noir]

Arrested?I doubt it , unless they refused to leave/put a shirt on or whatever.

Yeah, kinda exactly in the way that a man would't.

[ConHog]

Yeah, kinda exactly in the way that a man would't.

You do realize that it is actually MEN who this law discriminates against, right? Women get to look at all the hot man tit they can handle right out in public, while poor neglected fellows like Jim are relegated to YouPorn for their titty fixes?

:laugh2:



Seriously, of all the things to rail against.......................

[Noir]

You do realize that it is actually MEN who this law discriminates against, right? Women get to look at all the hot man tit they can handle right out in public, while poor neglected fellows like Jim are relegated to YouPorn for their titty fixes?

:laugh2:

Seriously, of all the things to rail against.......................

Rail against?
i'm posting opinions on a political board to see others opinions and reasoning, especially given its something rarely, if ever, discussed on this board.

[Gaffer]

Noir you need to go to New Orleans during Mardi Gras. You can see all the Boobs you want. The women get beads for lifting their shirts. Your idea would destroy the bead industry.

[logroller]

Because it leads to the sigmatisation of women for no other reason than they are a woman and that it is in societies interests too subject them to it for both (archaic) social and economic reasons.

edit- also, it teaches us to be ashamed of our own bodies, men and women.

By that same standard of reasoning, we should be free to have sex in public. "Nothing to be ashamed of, it's totally natural."

[Noir]

By that same standard of reasoning, we should be free to have sex in public. "Nothing to be ashamed of, it's totally natural."

My point isn't 'it should be allowed because its natural' it's that men and women should be treated equal. Whatever the law is it should be be same across the sexs, either you can or can't go topless.

Also I forgot to mention earlier, but should have, having a 'woman shouldn't go topless' rule puts an obvious yet subtle stigma on women who want to breast feed. Which is another reason why I think the rule should be that both can go topless.

[darin]

My point isn't 'it should be allowed because its natural' it's that men and women should be treated equal. Whatever the law is it should be be same across the sexs, either you can or can't go topless.

Also I forgot to mention earlier, but should have, having a 'woman shouldn't go topless' rule puts an obvious yet subtle stigma on women who want to breast feed. Which is another reason why I think the rule should be that both can go topless.

Absolutely in this case. While gender-specific laws make sense to people when the law benefits women and hurts men (see reproductive 'rights' laws, and Family Court rulings), things like 'shirtless laws' are silly - they propagate our nations' goofy puritan origins.

[Shadow]

By that same standard of reasoning, we should be free to have sex in public. "Nothing to be ashamed of, it's totally natural."

Noir has already argued for that standard in one of the OWS threads. I'm sure he is all for public sex.

[Noir]

Noir has already argued for that standard in one of the OWS threads. I'm sure he is all for public sex.

In a private place, out of site and sound of others, and should others see/hear something then they have cause to have the people having sex arrested.

[Gunny]

So if we don't consider them sexal organs, then they're not.

Try again. Most of the world does. You're trying to play semantics, simple as that. They are considered sexual organs in most places and displaying them in public is a violation of the law. End of story.

[darin]

They are sexual organs only in specific contexts. Just like other parts of the body which aren't censored for puritan reasons/the sake of tradition/because some folk like to get upset about things.

[jimnyc]

I'd rather they solve Noir's complaint by making it unlawful for men to bare their "breasts" in public too. Not only don't I want my wife being ogled at by all the men, I kinda like looking at women with a bit of mystery, wondering exactly what it is underneath there! Besides, once you start letting boobies out there like it's no big deal, next thing you know I'll have to deal with weiners swinging back and forth as I walk down the road!

[Gunny]

I'd rather they solve Noir's complaint by making it unlawful for men to bare their "breasts" in public too. Not only don't I want my wife being ogled at by all the men, I kinda like looking at women with a bit of mystery, wondering exactly what it is underneath there! Besides, once you start letting boobies out there like it's no big deal, next thing you know I'll have to deal with weiners swinging back and forth as I walk down the road!

Noir doesn't have a complaint. He wants to push the boundaries of the rules, and anyone's button he can.

[darin]

I'd rather they solve Noir's complaint by making it unlawful for men to bare their "breasts" in public too. Not only don't I want my wife being ogled at by all the men, I kinda like looking at women with a bit of mystery, wondering exactly what it is underneath there! Besides, once you start letting boobies out there like it's no big deal, next thing you know I'll have to deal with weiners swinging back and forth as I walk down the road!

Living in europe changed me in a number of ways; bewbs became no-big-deal. Or, that is to say, I became comfortable enough not to care/notice.

Boobs, in Germany, were EVERYWHERE.

Here's me (on right) and a buddy in Mainz, Germany, at Fasching fest (sorta like mardi gras). This adorned a kids ride set up with many others.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2875&d=1325177243

[Gunny]

Living in europe changed me in a number of ways; bewbs became no-big-deal. Or, that is to say, I became comfortable enough not to care/notice.

Boobs, in Germany, were EVERYWHERE.

Here's me (on right) and a buddy in Mainz, Germany, at Fasching fest (sorta like mardi gras). This adorned a kids ride set up with many others.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2875&d=1325177243

Should try living in Europe AND numerous deployments to and/or through SE Asia. I didn't say they bothered me. The fact is though, our oversexed society considers female breasts sexual organs, and only in a few places is it legal to display them in a group (communes/private beaches), and I know of nowhere in the US it legal to display them in general public. We are taught from Day One they are sexual organs, as a society, and our laws reflect that.

How other societies react to and/or treat the subject is on them. We are subject to US Law. I suggest if Noir wants to start his own boob site, let him have at it. It is my understanding that if we are going to show nudity and/or more, Jim has to make this an adult only site which requires a warning cover page and disclaimer and that each member check off a box stating they are over 18 when they first join. (I went through this issue elsewhere).

I see a slippery slope here, so my answer has always been "none".

And I will reiterate this is just Noir pushing the boundaries and buttons.

[darin]

Our society is broken; to fix it, we need to purge ourselves of stupid, puritan traditions and laws. I'm not debating Jim's rules for content; I'm saying our fixation w/ breasts of females is stupid. We owe it to ourselves and our kids to change our perceptions.

[Gunny]

Our society is broken; to fix it, we need to purge ourselves of stupid, puritan traditions and laws. I'm not debating Jim's rules for content; I'm saying our fixation w/ breasts of females is stupid. We owe it to ourselves and our kids to change our perceptions.

Really? And our fixations with buttocks, penis and/or vagina? Are those stupid too?

You're entitled to your opinion; however, I disagree. Covering the breasts and/or them being the product of "stupid, puritan laws" is incorrect, as they are not. Women covering their breasts and them being considered sexual organs is as old as human civilization. Our society did not create the tradition. The tradition was brought to our society with the Europeans that created it.

[ConHog]

Our society is broken; to fix it, we need to purge ourselves of stupid, puritan traditions and laws. I'm not debating Jim's rules for content; I'm saying our fixation w/ breasts of females is stupid. We owe it to ourselves and our kids to change our perceptions.

Really? I think that returing to some of our conservative religous traditions and laws would in fact HELP this country.

[SassyLady]

I keep mine covered because they are indeed special and reserved as a treat for those whom I think are deserving. If everyone saw them all the time what would I have left to let that special someone know I like them more than all the other rubes running around the place.

ps....they also get cold easily which is another reason to cover up

[darin]

Really? And our fixations with buttocks, penis and/or vagina? Are those stupid too?

You're entitled to your opinion; however, I disagree. Covering the breasts and/or them being the product of "stupid, puritan laws" is incorrect, as they are not. Women covering their breasts and them being considered sexual organs is as old as human civilization. Our society did not create the tradition. The tradition was brought to our society with the Europeans that created it.

Again, Context is everything. We're talking about boobs here; the slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy that's easy to drop to; But other than SIZE and purpose, there's no difference in mens and womens boobs. When a completely-flat chested woman can get a ticket for being shirtless right next to a non-ticketed fat man with D-cup breasts, it points to serious problems with society's values.

Breasts - NOT sexual unless used for sex. Just like your aforementioned butts, and the other parts. And mouths. And feet. This very-unhealthy fascination with breasts carried by our society is a sign of seriously deranged and close-minded puritans. See also: blue laws.

[jimnyc]

I keep mine covered because they are indeed special and reserved as a treat for those whom I think are deserving. If everyone saw them all the time what would I have left to let that special someone know I like them more than all the other rubes running around the place.

ps....they also get cold easily which is another reason to cover up

I've been a very good boy this year, well, most of the time anyway. Am I deserving? :coffee:

[Gunny]

Again, Context is everything. We're talking about boobs here; the slippery-slope argument is a logical fallacy that's easy to drop to; But other than SIZE and purpose, there's no difference in mens and womens boobs. When a completely-flat chested woman can get a ticket for being shirtless right next to a non-ticketed fat man with D-cup breasts, it points to serious problems with society's values.

Breasts - NOT sexual unless used for sex. Just like your aforementioned butts, and the other parts. And mouths. And feet. This very-unhealthy fascination with breasts carried by our society is a sign of seriously deranged and close-minded puritans. See also: blue laws.

I've heard the "logical fallacy" argument before. For 52 years as a matter of fact while I've watched everything that called a "logical fallacy" years ago become fact today. The slippery slope is logical, but no fallacy. It's very real.

I don't consider anyone's fascination with female breasts either healthy or unhealthy in general. Again, any fascination with female breasts is not a product of puritans, nor blue laws. Puritans alone did not create our society. Everyone that migrated here from Europe or else where had covered breasts and they were considered sexual organs long before the US and any so called blue laws.

[darin]

I've heard the "logical fallacy" argument before. For 52 years as a matter of fact while I've watched everything that called a "logical fallacy" years ago become fact today. The slippery slope is logical, but no fallacy. It's very real.

I don't consider anyone's fascination with female breasts either healthy or unhealthy in general. Again, any fascination with female breasts is not a product of puritans, nor blue laws. Puritans alone did not create our society. Everyone that migrated here from Europe or else where had covered breasts and they were considered sexual organs long before the US and any so called blue laws.

and before they were considered sex organs largely driven by mind-controlling and population-controlling church establishments, Breasts were not considered sex organs.

[Gunny]

and before they were considered sex organs largely driven by mind-controlling and population-controlling church establishments, Breasts were not considered sex organs.

A opinion you cannot support with fact. I CAN however say that in all of recorded history, not all by controlling church establishments, the societies where some have not covered there breasts are in Africa. In every other society on record, they were covered. Meaning, they were considered special. Common sense and logic dictates if they were not, they would not have been covered.

So, I disagree with your statement. I understand your argument; although, I disagree with the premise of your argument (mythical puritanical laws created by OUR society). However, the fallacy of the premise of your argument is that which renders it invalid, IMO.

[darin]

A opinion you cannot support with fact. I CAN however say that in all of recorded history, not all by controlling church establishments, the societies where some have not covered there breasts are in Africa. In every other society on record, they were covered. Meaning, they were considered special. Common sense and logic dictates if they were not, they would not have been covered.

So, I disagree with your statement. I understand your argument; although, I disagree with the premise of your argument (mythical puritanical laws created by OUR society). However, the fallacy of the premise of your argument is that which renders it invalid, IMO.

absolutely wrong. We're not talking about covering breasts, we're talking about societal views (and in my mind biological views) on breasts being inherrently sexual or not. Not every society considers them sex organs. Hasn't always been that way. Your common sense statement is logical fallacy - you just sorta said 'Because breasts are covered - and therefore considered special (your opinion without research) breasts MUST have been always considered sex organs.' That's not rooted in any brand of sense other than in the sense of supporting your viewpoint; your personal choice based on probably a myriad of factors - but not in anthropological evidence. And that's fine. Your experiences have shaped your point of view - but you may consider not applying universal or historical truth to the views.

What is the fallacy of the premise of my argument? My argument has no premise. My argument is "breasts are only a big deal because our society's puritan-influenced history has MADE them a big deal. If we change our paradigm and apply practical and common-sense lenses over our laws, we'll see laws against female breasts in public have no societal benefit - and honestly, have lead to the problem of our sex-crazed society in the first place. We're a self-licking ice cream cone. We rail against ANYTHING boob-related, yet fully support erectile-dysfunction ads on TV. We fine somebody six digits because of a half-second sort of boob shot during the super bowl which had minute-long ads about sex acts and functions. "

No fallacies there. None. It's observation and commentary. Slippery slope, Appeals to tradition or popularity, however - as you've used are logical fallacies.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[gabosaurus]

The American obsession with breasts is the leading cause of sexual harassment in schools and workplaces.
Girls are brought up believing they need to be thin and have large breasts. Those who aren't (because body characteristics are hereditary) are left with low self esteem and tend to under perform.
In high school particularly, girls with large breasts are constantly harassed. They are branded as "sluts" merely because media tells us such girls are easy prey. Guys feel that they should be able to touch at will and not be reprimanded.

So dudes, why are you so obsessed with mere sacs of fat?

[darin]

why are women so obsessed with them, Gab?

[jimnyc]

So dudes, why are you so obsessed with mere sacs of fat?

Same as the area down below. They are generally hidden and let the imagination take over. And it usually takes marriage, or a lot of booze, to actually reach the promised land and get to see either. That, and they are luscious, on women, well, most women, even small ones, but not too big.

[shattered]

You keep yours covered, and Ill keep mine covered.

[gabosaurus]

You keep yours covered, and Ill keep mine covered.

You obviously have more to cover than me. :laugh:

[ConHog]

You obviously have more to cover than me. :laugh:

When did this become a thread about mouths?

[Noir]

Well this is hilarious xD After several pages of posting, inwhich most Mods have posted, including Gunny who 'doesn't moderate in threads inwhich he posts'. Gunny decides that the OP is against the rules and edits it, many lulz on my part, but Gunny, you missed some nudity in my post #39! Better get it edited out quick ^,^

More in topic I've found DMPS posts most insightful on this topic, id never considered the subtle but now obvious differences in the culture from Europe to America in this respect.

[jimnyc]

Noir, I'll let Gunny explain his decision, but you should know better than to question it publicly. The board rules state no pornography, and full nudity is out. If everyone here started posting "bare boobies", it would get a bit uncomfy for the gals. We post boobies, but generally in bras, lingerie and such. I admit I let your pic ride when I saw it because I thought it was a lame boobie picture and was in the interest of discussion and not simply for posting bare boobies. Not all mods think alike and I respect their decisions unless I feel it is harmful to the board. While I personally would have left this particular picture, I don't think it brings harm to the board or you as a member to have it removed. Not everyone sees nudity in the same manner. What I call a cool set of boobs another might consider highly offensive. Make sense?

[Noir]

Noir, I'll let Gunny explain his decision, but you should know better than to question it publicly. The board rules state no pornography, and full nudity is out. If everyone here started posting "bare boobies", it would get a bit uncomfy for the gals. We post boobies, but generally in bras, lingerie and such. I admit I let your pic ride when I saw it because I thought it was a lame boobie picture and was in the interest of discussion and not simply for posting bare boobies. Not all mods think alike and I respect their decisions unless I feel it is harmful to the board. While I personally would have left this particular picture, I don't think it brings harm to the board or you as a member to have it removed. Not everyone sees nudity in the same manner. What I call a cool set of boobs another might consider highly offensive. Make sense?

Not questioning, just pointing out something I found funny. I mean, he said to me he never mods in topics he posts him, so I thought I'd remind him of that give he has posted half a dozen times or more in this one.

And ofcourse common sense must be applied, boobs in all topics would be awful, however in context and as non-vulgar as possible (as I believe the OP pic was on both counts) with a reasonable warning in the topic title seemed reasonable to me (and given the lack of uproar aginst) reasonable to most other posters, Gunny was even fone with it for a day or two.

Anyways, the purpose of the picture has been served, and I'm sure we can all continue the debate without it, still, too funny not to point out lol.

No doubt gunny will feel he has to reply with something, so has to preempt such a post I'll say a simple 'You had your reasons, no worries, alls cool' don't want much more of the thread spent on it when there's no point (:

On with the discussion!

[jimnyc]

Not questioning, just pointing out something I found funny. I mean, he said to me he never mods in topics he posts him, so I thought I'd remind him of that give he has posted half a dozen times or more in this one.

And ofcourse common sense must be applied, boobs in all topics would be awful, however in context and as non-vulgar as possible (as I believe the OP pic was on both counts) with a reasonable warning in the topic title seemed reasonable to me (and given the lack of uproar aginst) reasonable to most other posters, Gunny was even fone with it for a day or two.

Anyways, the purpose of the picture has been served, and I'm sure we can all continue the debate without it, still, too funny not to point out lol.

No doubt gunny will feel he has to reply with something, so has to preempt such a post I'll say a simple 'You had your reasons, no worries, alls cool' don't want much more of the thread spent on it when there's no point (:

On with the discussion!

To make it fair to all parties, post it on a site like tinypic.com and then post the Direct URL link here. Anyone wanting to can see the picture and it's quite easy for those not wanting to see it to do so. It's a win win.

[darin]

okay - time for girls in yoga pants.

:D

[ConHog]

Noir, I'll let Gunny explain his decision, but you should know better than to question it publicly. The board rules state no pornography, and full nudity is out. If everyone here started posting "bare boobies", it would get a bit uncomfy for the gals. We post boobies, but generally in bras, lingerie and such. I admit I let your pic ride when I saw it because I thought it was a lame boobie picture and was in the interest of discussion and not simply for posting bare boobies. Not all mods think alike and I respect their decisions unless I feel it is harmful to the board. While I personally would have left this particular picture, I don't think it brings harm to the board or you as a member to have it removed. Not everyone sees nudity in the same manner. What I call a cool set of boobs another might consider highly offensive. Make sense?

Just an opinion of course, but it seems to me that in a thread about it being wrong to publicly show a woman's breasts I think discussing a mod's decision to remove pictures within the thread is certainly apropos. Rather, it would have been had Noir done it a little more nicely.

[jimnyc]

Just an opinion of course, but it seems to me that in a thread about it being wrong to publicly show a woman's breasts I think discussing a mod's decision to remove pictures within the thread is certainly apropos. Rather, it would have been had Noir done it a little more nicely.

Nice or not, it was a staff decision, and decisions won't be discussed on the board. In fact, I think I explained more than what was 'necessary'. I'm going to stop this one before I even have to explain further. The rules are the rules. If someone has a question or complaint about them, shoot a staff member a message. It's a very simple concept.

[jimnyc]

I'm opening this back up so that the initial discussion can continue. We are not going to discuss staff decisions, end of that story.

[ConHog]

I'm opening this back up so that the initial discussion can continue. We are not going to discuss staff decisions, end of that story.


WHat about discussing what we were discussing in PM? I think that could be an interesting discussion.

[Abbey Marie]

WHat about discussing what we were discussing in PM? I think that could be an interesting discussion.

If you were discussing how DP has the hottest women of any message board, let's hear it.
:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

WHat about discussing what we were discussing in PM? I think that could be an interesting discussion.
I wouldn't advise discussing pm's in public, ya know.

[ConHog]

If you were discussing how DP has the hottest women of any message board, let's hear it.
:laugh2:

Does that even have to be discussed or can we just agree it's true?

[ConHog]

I wouldn't advise discussing pm's in public, ya know.

discussing PMs is not against the rules, discussing the content of said PMs WOULD be against the rules if an admin (in this case Jim) approved of it.

Or maybe Jim lied when he told me that........

[SassyLady]

I've been a very good boy this year, well, most of the time anyway. Am I deserving? :coffee:

Wow....did you lose that pic I sent on your birthday?

[LuvRPgrl]

If you were discussing how DP has the hottest women of any message board, let's hear it.
:laugh2:

how can we know unless we see all you girls boobies???:2up:

[LuvRPgrl]

discussing PMs is not against the rules, discussing the content of said PMs WOULD be against the rules if an admin (in this case Jim) approved of it.

Or maybe Jim lied when he told me that........

good god man, dont you ever stop?
Now you are accusing Jim of lying?

I know, I know, "I didnt actually accuse him of lying, I was just saying that in general, people who,,,",blah, blah, blah

get out and buy some ice cream of something, there is life outside the basement.

[ConHog]

good god man, dont you ever stop?
Now you are accusing jim of lying?

I know, i know, "i didnt actually accuse him of lying, i was just saying that in general, people who,,,",blah, blah, blah

get out and buy some ice cream of something, there is life outside the basement.

lolwut?

[Noir]

Wow....did you lose that pic I sent on your birthday?

You mean that one you sent to JimJimnyc@gmail.com? Yeah, idk how to say this really, but, surprise?

But you looked fabulous ^,^

[Noir]

Saw this quote, hits the nail on the head as far as i'm concerned....


Society has a problem with female nudity when it is not … ”—Badu pauses to get her words together; she wants this point to be very clear—“… when it is not packaged for the consumption of male entertainment. Then it becomes confusing.



also this drawing for the win xD
3311
(click to enlarge)