Breasts not for looking but pecs are okay

[Derek Wolff]

I want to see how many women actually want to walk around with their top off. I think it would suck to walk around with out any support for your boobs. I bet they would get sore if you walked a lot or ran. Maybe chafe too. What the hell is the point of this is what I'm really wondering :|. Who really wants to do this?

[HelioPrime]

In defense of not showing breasts in public:

Breasts have a use in feeding a baby. They excrete liquid just like select other hidden body parts. Male pecs don't.

And I'll bring up the same point from the public nudity thread: Do you want to see the large saggy breasts of mostly overweight American's ridding on top of their fat bellies?

[Technosoul]

Nice to know that everyone born will automatically be a criminal.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Technosoul Nice to know that everyone born will automatically be a criminal.

Do you agree/disagree that people should have a right to walk around naked, perhaps stroke one out in public when siting a hot female. Is it really treating you like a criminal to deny this?

Now do you want fat, elderly men, sitting around naked stroking their pubic area's in the middle of the mall? Or do you agree there needs to be some level of moderation.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: HelioPrime In defense of not showing breasts in public: Breasts have a use in feeding a baby. They excrete liquid just like select other hidden body parts. Male pecs don't.

The fact the female breasts excrete liquid is not the reason that going top free is illegal.

And I'll bring up the same point from the public nudity thread: Do you want to see the large saggy breasts of mostly overweight American's ridding on top of their fat bellies?

No, but America is the land of the free, I shouldn't be allowed to have my opinion of somebody else's body enshrined in law.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: HelioPrime Do you agree/disagree that people should have a right to walk around naked, perhaps stroke one out in public when siting a hot female. Is it really treating you like a criminal to deny this? Now do you want fat, elderly men, sitting around naked stroking their pubic area's in the middle of the mall? Or do you agree there needs to be some level of moderation.

Moderation is key. Banning lewd activity and harassment is appropriate moderation. Telling people that certain parts of their body can't be seen in public just doesn't logically follow from your initial point.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: HelioPrime In defense of not showing breasts in public: Breasts have a use in feeding a baby. They excrete liquid just like select other hidden body parts. Male pecs don't. And I'll bring up the same point from the public nudity thread: Do you want to see the large saggy breasts of mostly overweight American's ridding on top of their fat bellies?

This is not precisely true. Men can also "secrete liquid" from their nipples. And not ALL women can "secrete" on command, usually only lactating/pregnant women or those with otherwise wacked out hormones.

And I fail to see how naked obesity is any more of an issue than clothed obesity, Good grief. We're such a ridiculous society.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'll show you an extremely overweight man clothed and then show you him naked, and then we'll see you make that statement again.

[lsbskins1]

Women look, they just tend to not stare.

And people are gonna look, men and women, at the man or woman they find attractive, and it aint ever gonna be illegal.

But if we are discussing what is going to be more socially appropriate/acceptable, that is another kettle of fish. 1) When it comes to possible sexual partners, men want to look at any option they find attractive, but most men have been socialized to be angry if someone looks at "their" partner. That is where the conflict comes from for the men: How do I gain the freedom to see what I want, while restricting the access of others to see what I "own". 2) Men want every sexually attractive option to be available for the looky-lew and want to be viewed as sexually attractive by every sexually attractive option. By social conditioning, they desire others to be impressed by their pecs. If they don't care, and even encourage the objects of their desire to look, why would there be any stigma? 3) Women are culturally and socially encouraged to be modest for their partner, whom they desire biologically for nest building and protection. 4) If the men don't want others looking at 'their" partner's chest, why are we surprised that there is social stigma against women who "flaunt" and against others "taking liberties"? Really, from a sociological stand-point, it all makes perfect sense. Even if you look at it from neutral sexual orientation perspective.

[Jack]

I'll show you an extremely overweight man clothed and then show you him naked, and then we'll see you make that statement again.

Seriously, if you're easily offended do not click on the following link:
http://radicalatheist.com/images/Xchat.jpg
Pecs, hell, there isn't a part of that man I'd want to look at.

[gallo]

In accord with the OP and several early posts, I offer the following:

On more than one occasion I have been accosted by the boy friend of a scantily clad female who demanded to know what I was looking at. My response was always, "Her boobs. If she didn't want me to look, then she wouldn't have exposed them, no matter what you think." If that didn't work, the the fact that I was (way back then) 6'5" and 220 lbs. was sufficient to avoid further confrontation. If not, then a call to everyone to "look at her boobs" seemed to work.

I'm not really sexist, but if a woman wants to show me her breasts, then I'll look. My wife knows this and uses it when she wants.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Women look, they just tend to not stare. And people are gonna look, men and women, at the man or woman they find attractive, and it aint ever gonna be illegal. But if we are discussing what is going to be more socially appropriate/acceptable, that is another kettle of fish. 1) When it comes to possible sexual partners, men want to look at any option they find attractive, but most men have been socialized to be angry if someone looks at "their" partner. That is where the conflict comes from for the men: How do I gain the freedom to see what I want, while restricting the access of others to see what I "own".

Be bigger and stronger than the other guys who are looking.

2) Men want every sexually attractive option to be available for the looky-lew and want to be viewed as sexually attractive by every sexually attractive option. By social conditioning, they desire others to be impressed by their pecs. If they don't care, and even encourage the objects of their desire to look, why would there be any stigma? 3) Women are culturally and socially encouraged to be modest for their partner, whom they desire biologically for nest building and protection. 4) If the men don't want others looking at 'their" partner's chest, why are we surprised that there is social stigma against women who "flaunt" and against others "taking liberties"? Really, from a sociological stand-point, it all makes perfect sense. Even if you look at it from neutral sexual orientation perspective.

Not sure I understand point 2

I was (way back then) 6'5" and 220 lbs.

What'd ya shrink?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Be bigger and stronger than the other guys who are looking.

That was an example of a rhetorical question. But in answer to your answer...that would be my point. Men, just as women, participate is behavior that creates a bit of a paradox for them. Everybody can't be bigger and stronger than everyone else.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Not sure I understand point 2

What don't you understand? Bigger pecs make the man more attractive to the available partners. Biology and social conditioning lead men down a certain path and that path has implications. Men have a strong biological drive to spread their seed. If no one is looking, they fail in the first step of the process. They want potential partners looking at them. If they want it, and lose no advantage by getting it, why would there be a reason to discourage it? Women, on the other hand, lose the advantage of stability for rearing young if their mate has to keep chasing off rivals.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary What'd ya shrink?

I think, as a lesbian, I would be more inclined towards the healthy, athletic looking female, but the principle is the same. My biology asks me to pick, attract and settle down. I need to keep my mate's interest, but not create an enviroment where my mate needs to constantly defend against rivals. We are more "animal" in our behavior than we like to admit.

[Gods_Mercenary]

What don't you understand? Bigger pecs make the man more attractive to the available partners. Biology and social conditioning lead men down a certain path and that path has implications. Men have a strong biological drive to spread their seed. If no one is looking, they fail in the first step of the process. They want potential partners looking at them. If they want it, and lose no advantage by getting it, why would there be a reason to discourage it? Women, on the other hand, lose the advantage of stability for rearing young if their mate has to keep chasing off rivals.

Now I get it, I thought that was sort of what you were aiming at.

By the way, I think the muscular upper body, especially chest, is at least as much to intimidate other males as to attract mates.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Now I get it, I thought that was sort of what you were aiming at. By the way, I think the muscular upper body, especially chest, is at least as much to intimidate other males as to attract mates.

True, dat.