Women's breasts

[Jonluw]

I was specifically thinking of things like mowing the lawn and other yard work on a hot day. Obviously some women would like to have support for things like jogging, so their dangly bits aren't hitting them in face (I presume this is what happens).

[sub]Text: Conclusive proof that the sports-bra is a good invention.[/sub]​

People's interpretation of the OP confuses me.
I'm not arguing that women should let their breasts loose at all times and just generally walk around topless.
Clothes are practical, and I would like breasts to retain their eroticism.

What I'm arguing is that I think it's silly that you're allowed to look at as many breasts you want as an adult, but must be shielded from them at all costs during a certain period of your childhood.

 

[Spineyguy]

Aside from anything else it's tremendously impractical for women to have such things completely unbound.

Depends on the size of the breasts and what the breasts' owner does in terms of activity.

Of course it does, but assuming that most women have a lifestyle that involves more than the mere preparation of sandwiches I think being covered up is best.

Oh, gee, women doing more than just making sammiches? Why didn't I think of that.

Oh wait, I did. And "covered" isn't necessarily better, especially when you think in terms of analogous situations. Come on.

Another example of how being overly defensive can make even the most general of statements sound like a personal attack. Precisely what sort of activity do you think does not require at least a t-shirt (disregarding the obvious answer)?

 

[Something Amyss]

I was specifically thinking of things like mowing the lawn and other yard work on a hot day.

...You're kidding, right? No, seriously, are you kidding? Pklease tell me you are kidding.

 

[Something Amyss]

Another example of how being overly defensive can make even the most general of statements sound like a personal attack. Precisely what sort of activity do you think does not require at least a t-shirt (disregarding the obvious answer)?

So you say something ridiculous and the answer is immediately "defensive."

Come on...Be serious, dude. Why would most activities (most) for most women (most) REQUIRE at least a shirt?

Let's go from there.

 

[spartandude]

its not just boobs. nearly any kind of nudity seems to be prohibited as well as any mention of sex when a young one is concerned in wstern countries such as Britain or America
it seems to come from a train of thought that if a child is exposed to anything to do with sex they will obivously become a teengae parent or a serial rapist, ya know the exact opposite of what tends to happen in countries where children are educated or given knowlede about sex

 

[Easton Dark]

I kind of wish I wasn't exposed to them when I was, probably 4th grade?

Since that day, I've had an unending need to see as many as I can. It drives me mad sometimes.

 

[spartandude]

Its weird that total nudity isnt allowed either.

I see no reason why not. Children HAVE a gender. So hey already know what 50% of what they are looking at is. Whats the harm of learning the other side. Is life really so terrifying we need to keep children in purosefull ignorance of their own bodies? Things that will do no harm to them and are not disturbing or scaring in any way? Its a body. A person. You know what a human is. You ARE one. Perhaps sexuality is so repressed because we try and tell everyone its bad.

The netherlands has a VERY sexual liberal country. Lowest teen pregnancy rate in europe. Go figure.

i completely agree

 

[Creator002]

With regards to the censorship of man bits I think the funniest thing I have seen was the recent 'dildo' Diablo 3 story in Kotaku. The facebook comments were full of 'I don't want dildo's on my news feed!' from men. Whereas the hundreds of stories about half naked anime chicks is perfectly fine.

It's crazy how protective or disturbed men are about their own sexual organ whereas women are expected to put up with pictures of boobs being plastered everywhere, especially in gaming. I think it's pretty funny personally.

This just made me think of a funny inversion done by Rockstar. I don't remember seeing a single boob in any GTA 4 episode (including the main game), but there was full frontal male nudity (even if for just a few seconds) in The Lost and Damned.
I wonder how many gamers complained about that.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Um, okay. Well, this is where cultural differences come into play. In Finland, at least when I was a kid, and I don't think that's changed too much: no-one cares about 1-5 year olds seeing naked women, and that goes for 6-8-(or generally surely before puberty) ages, if it's like family/friends gatherings; sauna, and so on.

Then, at puberty, 12-13 and from there, females are generally the only thing in a teenager boy's mind. At least they were from me. And during that time, boobs and the vagina become like the holy grail. Then it kind of depends on the kid, whether he manages to find similarly hormonally-crazy girls who are willing to explore and share experiences in that area. I had my fair share of plenty of magnificent breasts during the teenage years. So it was merely the very beginning of puberty, when the wonders of women's breasts were hidden from me. And before teens, I didn't really care for them.

So I can't really see the point. Nudity isn't as much of a taboo here.

 

[Dags90]

...You're kidding, right? No, seriously, are you kidding? Pklease tell me you are kidding.

Why would I be kidding? Obviously they should wear sunscreen or if they're prone to sunburn or something.

People's interpretation of the OP confuses me.
I'm not arguing that women should let their breasts loose at all times and just generally walk around topless.
Clothes are practical, and I would like breasts to retain their eroticism.

What I'm arguing is that I think it's silly that you're allowed to look at as many breasts you want as an adult, but must be shielded from them at all costs during a certain period of your childhood.

I'm not sure how women going topless in public isn't relevant, seeing as they'd be seen by adults and children alike.

 

[Jonluw]

People's interpretation of the OP confuses me.
I'm not arguing that women should let their breasts loose at all times and just generally walk around topless.
Clothes are practical, and I would like breasts to retain their eroticism.

What I'm arguing is that I think it's silly that you're allowed to look at as many breasts you want as an adult, but must be shielded from them at all costs during a certain period of your childhood.

I'm not sure how women going topless in public isn't relevant, seeing as they'd be seen by adults and children alike.

Of course it's relevant, but more as a tangent.
What I find strange is that a lot of people reply saying only something like "dude, if women walked around topless all the time, boobs'd lose the magic".
It's relevant and all, but they don't seem to have noticed the main point.

General toplessness needn't be a consequence of us stopping our efforts to hide breasts from children.

 

[Spineyguy]

Another example of how being overly defensive can make even the most general of statements sound like a personal attack. Precisely what sort of activity do you think does not require at least a t-shirt (disregarding the obvious answer)?

So you say something ridiculous and the answer is immediately "defensive."

Come on...Be serious, dude. Why would most activities (most) for most women (most) REQUIRE at least a shirt?

Let's go from there.

I was making fun of the sexist jokes that have become popular on the internet recently. Now I'm confused as to whether you're taking exception to that because you think I'm serious, or I'm taking exception to you taking exception because I think you are serious.

Gravity has this affect on things that have at least some mass. Strenuous activities that may require rapid movement up and down (such as climbing stairs or running to catch a bus) will cause breasts to bounce in an uncoordinated and messy fashion, over time this will not only cause sagging, but may lead to injury. When carrying heavy loads, unclad breasts may prevent the woman's assuming of a safe lifting position, or become caught in between objects. Aside from this there are abrasions and numerous other injuries which, while easily avoidable with careful use of clothing, could cause pain, discomfort and inconvenience to the individual in question.

Basically, wearing clothes is sensible.

 

[Dags90]

Of course it's relevant, but more as a tangent.
What I find strange is that a lot of people reply saying only something like "dude, if women walked around topless all the time, boobs'd lose the magic".
It's relevant and all, but they don't seem to have noticed the main point.

General toplessness needn't be a consequence of us stopping our efforts to hide breasts from children.

On both fronts people seem to think that decency laws are the only thing preventing a boob apocalypse. The only logical conclusion is that all the women they know are massive exhibitionists who are clamoring to take their tops off, but aren't allowed to.

 

[shogunblade]

Hiya escapists.

Most people would not be uncomfortable with an infant seeing a breast. Hell, they spend most of the day latched on to them with their mouths. People generally regard it as unproblematic for children up to around three or four years of age to be exposed to breasts.
However, at around this age, a strange new social norm steps into place. From this point forward, all interaction with breasts other than the child's own is forbidden.

Breasts may now no longer enter the child's field of vision lest they be wrapped in a sufficiently concealing fabric.
Why is it that we must shield our young from the sight of something that is universally agreed on to be things of beauty? What are we afraid will happen?

I think the issue comes from the idea that if a human being has gotten old enough to get out of diapers, use a toilet, actually get in trouble for the things it says and does, they should know that at a certain age that women have these things on the front of them and they should be kept clothed at all times. When you are an infant, you know nothing, and as such, when you run around a mall naked or shit yourself or swear in public, you don't know what you are doing or saying, it's okay for right now. But if you can slowly become initiated into the phase "growing up", some things are taboo. If you fart in public, people won't hang around you, if you say something condemning about somebody, you earned a spot in the corner and people think you are a bully.

So from this point forward, the child is no longer allowed to bask in the sweetness of the female mammary area.
Sure, the norm may allow a look once in a while for educational purposes or for "art", but these rare viewings happen exclusively on the terms that one is absolutely not allowed to enjoy looking.
And touching, so as to take in the full beauty of breasts other than one's own, is completely forbidden.
Films which at some point display an areola are carefully kept out of reach of these children, lest they should anger the deity "PG-13"

I only respond to this post because as a movie researcher (read: I have too much time on my hands and watch lots of movies), the nudity thing is, I agree, rather silly. You can have Tribespeople stand in a movie with their genitals/breasts hanging out is okay, but if a woman disrobes, it's inappropriate. I have my issues that nudity penalties in movies should be as long as the breasts aren't part of a sex act (themselves, Sex would be PG-13 as well), it should be PG-13, but I'm not the prez of the MPAA. As for the art thing, yes, if it's Jack drawing Rose in Titanic, or Helen Hunt being drawn naked in As Good As It Gets, or surprisingly, Evan Rachel Wood (The youngest of the drawn naked for art actors) in Across The Universe, it's alright? It's kind of silly at this point to draw a woman naked and call that artistic, but do it in High School while you should be focusing on homework, and it's a trip to the Principal's Office.

But why does this all happen? It would all have been quite understandable if the sexuality which enters children's lives, prompting them to be cut off from breasts, disappears with age. But that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, late teenagers seem to be more sexual than most other people on the planet!

The answer to this is a vicious cycle back to the beginning of the post. Prudes in History deemed it bad, now it is bad. Although, when you bring up teenagers, the issues at that point becomes "Teenagers like sex", you've taken something as simple as breasts and turned them sexual. That's the difference. If you could look at breasts and not get aroused by them, Your answer wouldn't be so obvious, but then that's social norms.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

You fools! You all underestimate... THE MAN BOOB.

Ive realised girls hate those because of the competition.

 

[M920CAIN]

Hiya escapists.

Ah, the female chest area. La poitrine. These globular sacks of fatty tissue. Or, somewhat crudely, "tits". Recognized as a masterpiece of form and function by men and women alike. A perfect amalgation of shapeliness, consistency and practicality.
Studies[footnote]Disclaimer: Data not derived from actual studies.[/footnote] show that people with access to breasts are consistently happier than those who must live without them. Truly a sight to behold and a constant source of joy for many a person, such creations are by most recognized as the magnificent wonders of the natural world that they are.
And yet, by virtue of the mighty PG-13, trying to include illustrations in this thread would see me swiftly stricken down by the banhammer.

[sub]Sorry[/sub]​

I've been thinking a bit about breasts, as I am wont to do. Specifically, I've been thinking about our relationship to breasts when it comes to social norms.

Most people would not be uncomfortable with an infant seeing a breast. Hell, they spend most of the day latched on to them with their mouths. People generally regard it as unproblematic for children up to around three or four years of age to be exposed to breasts.
However, at around this age, a strange new social norm steps into place. From this point forward, all interaction with breasts other than the child's own is forbidden.

Breasts may now no longer enter the child's field of vision lest they be wrapped in a sufficiently concealing fabric.
Why is it that we must shield our young from the sight of something that is universally agreed on to be things of beauty? What are we afraid will happen?

[sub]?[/sub]​

This norm is popularly attributed to the formation of the child's sexuality, and as such, exceptions are known to have been made when the context was explicitly non-sexual. The problem seems to be that the design of the breast is too grand. Simply too perfect. To the point where the mere sight of such wondrous pieces of flesh is enough to arouse feelings of... well, arousal. In those that are attracted to women that is. And consequently, indecency in those who aren't.

So from this point forward, the child is no longer allowed to bask in the sweetness of the female mammary area.
Sure, the norm may allow a look once in a while for educational purposes or for "art", but these rare viewings happen exclusively on the terms that one is absolutely not allowed to enjoy looking.
And touching, so as to take in the full beauty of breasts other than one's own, is completely forbidden.
Films which at some point display an areola are carefully kept out of reach of these children, lest they should anger the deity "PG-13"-

Up until a certain point, that is. The age at which breasts are normally allowed to be reintroduced to a person's life lies at around 16-18 years in most western cultures. At this point, one may once again experience the grandeur with which one was so closely acquainted in one's past.
And truly the feeling is glorious.

But why does this all happen? It would all have been quite understandable if the sexuality which enters children's lives, prompting them to be cut off from breasts, disappears with age. But that does not seem to be the case. Indeed, late teenagers seem to be more sexual than most other people on the planet!

So why, then, are such massive efforts being exerted to keep children protected from taking part in the wonders of breasts?
What is the secret of these 12 to 15 years of one's life that leads us to keep them artificially devoid of bosoms, melons, milk factories, busts, funbags, knockers, balisties, boobies, jugs, nipples, jublies and [HEADING=2]Stonking great tits?![/HEADING]

Captcha: life's too short

OP is my hero

 

[Mikeyfell]

the boob ting is weird. Like even on this site I can say FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK all day long but if I try and post a picture like

Spoiler: this

Couldn't resist.

I'd incur all sorts of undue moderator wrath.

Also, another funny thing to bring up is that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a PG rated movie
(Which as you well know PG movies can not show boobs)
But what does Raiders show?
People getting shot, people getting thrown into snake pits, people getting decapitated by biplane propellers, monkeys getting poisoned, and horrible face-melty death.

That's fine but boobs are against the rules?

Is it too much to ask for every movie to be Caligula?
Well, yes. I suppose that would be the very definition of "too much to ask" but my point remains!

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

With regards to the censorship of man bits I think the funniest thing I have seen was the recent 'dildo' Diablo 3 story in Kotaku. The facebook comments were full of 'I don't want dildo's on my news feed!' from men. Whereas the hundreds of stories about half naked anime chicks is perfectly fine.

It's crazy how protective or disturbed men are about their own sexual organ whereas women are expected to put up with pictures of boobs being plastered everywhere, especially in gaming. I think it's pretty funny personally.

This just made me think of a funny inversion done by Rockstar. I don't remember seeing a single boob in any GTA 4 episode (including the main game), but there was full frontal male nudity (even if for just a few seconds) in The Lost and Damned.
I wonder how many gamers complained about that.

Probably quite a lot, remember when they put nipples on the Batsuit rofl

 

[Flamezdudes]

You fools! You all underestimate... THE MAN BOOB.

Ive realised girls hate those because of the competition.

They shall have to to deal with it. (I do not have man boobs as I am a skinny bastard... but still!)

THE MAN BOOB VS FEMALE BOOB.

FIGHT!

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

What the fuck are you going on about. So what if women wear shirts? And plus, not everyone wants to see boobs... and some boobs aren't meant to be seen.