What about the penis is offensive?

[BionicArmofDeth]

I think that there is something in our design that makes the genitals something that holds some sort of power(think about how animals always have that devilish look when you look at them head on, like a snake, or a bull). There must be some sort of factor in its form and shape that automatically makes you respond to it a certain way. Its also funny how one can feel either really powerful or really weak when one is completely naked and in front of people.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: BionicArmofDeth I think that there is something in our design that makes the genitals something that holds some sort of power(think about how animals always have that devilish look when you look at them head on, like a snake, or a bull).

Well, the penis does look a bit snakish, albeit one-eyed.

In ancient Egyption lore the snake was a sign of rebirth and imortality because of the shedding of its skin, disposing of the old and regaining the new. Some researchers have posited that that may be the superstitious beginnings of beliefs that caused the practice of circumcision to come about; ancient man respecting totems and nature and trying to learn from observing it.

Later, new religious sects wanting to demonize the one`s they broke from caste the snake as the villain (Garden of Eden) and then nakedness as part of evil, and that would entail being ashamed of one`s 'snake' and cause one to have to hide it from view.

[Rinoa]

In response to the bare the breast issue...Before feminism women were considered property, and alot of men didn't want other men looking at their women as sexually available, one way to help keep another mans thoughts away form sex with his wife was to hide parts of her body that were sexual. Now, it is the womans choice not to put herself on display. I don't want every guy I walk by looking me up and down that way...I get that enough from the truckers that come through...could you imagine how much worse it would be if I were topless? As for it being a western culture thing...It's not really.

For instance Japanese women historically wore elaborate kimono if they were well to do. Peasants tended to wear simpler outfits consisting of rough shorts and a jacket, women wore lower quality kimono. But they hardly went around exposed...Covering up was so valued in that culture that Geisha were taught to pour tea a certain way so as to reveal the 'erotic' inner wrist. Heaven forbid a breast should be exposed!

[Praxius]

Hey I wouldn't mind checking out a few snatches walking down the road from time to time..... I can say snatches can't I?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Rinoa lot of men didn't want other men looking at their women as sexually available

But how did the female breast become to be viewed as sexual?

How is it any more sexual than a wrist or ankle?

[Rinoa]

Perhaps not so much sexual as private. The wrist and ankle were not easily visible, they were a hidden part of the body, that is what made seeing them so desirable. As for what made them more sexual, it has to do with men finding breasts to be sexually attractive. Having developed breasts shows fertility, which evolution wise was important to the survival of the species and so men were drawn towards breasts as an indication of fertility. It's sort of been bred into us from there.

Hiding the nipple: The nipple is the one obvious outward sign of arousal in the female. It's like guys who hide their erection, but girls are told that they should be sexually withdrawn, instead of laying it all out there. So the nipple has become more taboo.

Praxius: And that is exactly why most women choose to wear clothing. lol

[jose]

I´ve often wondered why, in American films they are OK about showing people killing other people, but not about naked bodies

[Rinoa]

Because sexual content is believed to be worse than violence. There are also degrees of each. for example just the violence in sin city would be considered to be worse than the sexual content in Titanic. It has to do with age appropriate morals. A young child seeing violence is less affected than one who sees sexual content on the same level as the violence.

[Praxius]

Don't worry, you're not alone on that one..... I don't get it either.... Make Love Not War...... I guess War is more profitable then love and sex.

[Rinoa]

The maturity level required for watching violence is based purely on the childs understanding of real vs imaginary on tv. (usually bbetween seven and ten) whereas watching sexual content is generally saved for when they are sexually mature(13+, depending on the type of sexual content)

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 In our society, there's this huge stigma attached to the male and female nether regions. Why? Why must we accomodate people who are taught to be offended by these things, with laws proscribing things like "indecent exposure"?

Kamehameha some societies are very sad.
However the intent of "indecent exposure" should be consider. Deliberate flashing of body parts to shock for self graatification should be considers as requiring social regulation. When care is taken to avoid causing distress by trying to remian hidden say when releiving oneself by the wayside, and taking reasonable precautions so as not to create a public display then such regulation should not be applied.

All that said it is so sad that people take so much offence by the display of any body part which is not aroused....

As for keeping one's penis "safe". well pain can be excrutating if that which dangles gets in anyway mangled.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Rinoa Perhaps not so much sexual as private. The wrist and ankle were not easily visible, they were a hidden part of the body, that is what made seeing them so desirable. As for what made them more sexual, it has to do with men finding breasts to be sexually attractive. Having developed breasts shows fertility, which evolution wise was important to the survival of the species and so men were drawn towards breasts as an indication of fertility. It's sort of been bred into us from there. Hiding the nipple: The nipple is the one obvious outward sign of arousal in the female. It's like guys who hide their erection, but girls are told that they should be sexually withdrawn, instead of laying it all out there. So the nipple has become more taboo.

But this applies exactly to a man.


Having a developed chest (muscle) would show a man who was capable at hunting and thus providing.

Male nipples get erect when aroused as well.



So why is it commonplace for a man to be topless in the park but never for a female?

[Praxius]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 So why is it commonplace for a man to be topless in the park but never for a female?

Men's boobs are hard and small..... woman's are big, soft and bubbily..... and they jiggle more when they run..... so I guess it might be a distraction to drivers or something.

[Technosoul]

I have read some of the follow-up comments but not all of them.

We might have two reasons for the cover-up and one would have (first) been as a safty factor. Imagine running through the prickly bushes with your gong flapping around and getting it caught on a thorny rose bush.
And so you can see that reasoning would or could have led to wearing something to protect the privates from harm's way. Most four legged amimals are better protected because of the location of the reproductive organs.

A woman is thought of as a thing of beauty where as men seldom share that status in popular opinon, except where a cutlure is pro-gay such as the old Roman one and then men are more worshipped for their naked appearences.

In man you can tell what he is thinking by looking at his dick to see if it is "growing bigger" or not, where as the thoughts of a woman are more difficult to detect by looking that their privates. In order to keep secret that form of communication men covered up in order to prevent women from knowing what's up. (pun intended).

Because of a story about a wooden boy who's nose grew longer when he told a lie we have young boys thinking the same thing about their dicks and so that guilt started people to believe it represented a sin. Eh? Okay, just a spin off of biblical motivations and interpretations.

For some reason humans do not want to admit ( or to be reminded ) that they orginated from a dick during some sort of animal like activity such as intercourse. They view their orgins as something of higher standing like being created in the image of something godly. And as well they do not wish to think of their mothers and fathers in those terms (as animals doing the doggy thing). This has caused them much conflict mentally to maintain their illusions of being god-like rather then animal-like.

Social nudity is legal in a limited way and even accepable relative to the right circumstances. But making sexual suggestions with the private parts is concidered indecent because it bring us down to the level of the animals which we in our pride view as wrong because we think of humans as being "special" as non-animals due to the story of Adam and Eve. And related additions to that story.

However those older beliefs are slowly fading out but the law still enforces some of those older beliefs if someone claims their rights have been violated.

[jose]

Quote by: Rinoa Because sexual content is believed to be worse than violence. There are also degrees of each. for example just the violence in sin city would be considered to be worse than the sexual content in Titanic. It has to do with age appropriate morals. A young child seeing violence is less affected than one who sees sexual content on the same level as the violence.

But who decides that sexual content is worse than violence? i would rather have my children catch me making love with thier mother, than fighting with her. which do you think would be more traumatising?

[Rinoa]

It is of course up to the parent. And it is very important that parents make these decisions and then enforce them.

Depends on how you'er fighting. Children actually need to see their parents disagreeing in an adult manner and working through things so that they will understand that relationships aren't perfect, but that you have to work for them. It gives them a model of healthy compromise for their relationships later in life. Now if you were to deck their mom during the course of the fight that would be more damaging than walking in on you with their mother.

Also take into consideration that you are married to you wife, while most sex scenes in movies involve people who are not, in fact, in movies they tend to be one night stands, and first dates. To allow your child to watch that again and again over the course of his life promotes the idea that being promiscous is acceptable, it also promotes some unrealistic ideals about sex. For example it show actresses with perfect bodies, no after mess and rarely ever do you see birth control in a movie. Are those really values that you want to teach your children?

I'm also going to quote one of my previous posts...

The maturity level required for watching violence is based purely on the childs understanding of real vs imaginary on tv. (usually between seven and ten) whereas watching sexual content is generally saved for when they are sexually mature(13+, depending on the type of sexual content

When I say the understanding of real vs imaginary I mean that a four year old has a difficult time understanding that the things happening on the screen are not really happening. They also don't understand that because it's ok to watch it doesn't mean it's ok to do it. So a four year old that watches a violent(or sexual) movie is likely to go out and reenact it. An eight year old understands that just because the guy in the movie hit someone doesn't make it ok for him to do it, but he lacks the sexual maturity to watch an 'adult' movie. Americas squeamishness about sex in movies is based on the principle I've just presented. We're ready for violence before we(as children) are ready for sexual material.

[jose]

Quote by: Rinoa We're ready for violence before we(as children) are ready for sexual material.

i´m glad you see it. but disturbed

[Rinoa]

Well you also ought to consider the level of violence I'm refering to. Four year olds watching cartoons...eh. Four year olds watching Pans labyrinth...big issue.

[Osborn F Enready]

I find my own penis quite personable, and handsome. I haven't dealt with any other penises.

I find nothing unattractive about my penis, but am not inclined to ogle other mens penises.

I have no problem with penises, except the ones that take the shape of humans.

[Rinoa]

lmao...I think the issue generally isn't in dealing with seeing your own genitalia...I think it stems more from the people we don't want to see naked. Most of the discussion in here(particularly that about breast baring) has assumed that the naked person would actually be attractive. But think of this...if we didn't have to wear clothing your grandparents wouldn't have to wear it either. Do we really want the nudist old people to be walking around in public?