Attack of the Evil Nudists

[Milkyway64]

I wish I was a stupid terrorist writer. It's better than being a writer who never writes, which I am now.

[ballisticwaffles]

Wow, this thread has everything.

Terrorists

nudity

Someone proclaiming that said thread has everything then listing things.

I wonder what the topic was...

[Psygonis]

Come on Xort, she did first both using sarcasm and making a fuss, acting as she didn't figured out I used it too.

Either we both can, either no one does.

I'm sorry I focused on Dras' fallacy in my post. (You jelly? )

I'm not exactly at ease with your comment though because I answered to a point calling the need of cloth as a practical need (and as an echo to the societies in which staying nude or nearly nude is also convenient). You'll noticed I never said people had to be naked even in societies in which this was/is common place. I didn't repeat Dras'/your point about it because I thought it was evident, that even if it was allowed, everyone wouldn't use that right all the time (and not only for climatic reasons).

About opinions people have. For the n-th time, I never said anything could ever change. But it's long and hard and hazardous... One of your president (I think you're from the US Xort, if I remember correctly) said: "You can't legiferate against moral opinions but you can rule moral behavior." It's a circle.You can tell people to think whatever you want, it's how they think that matters in their brain. Then, again, society and laws are here to make sure moral behaviors are enforced in the dailylife. Young generations need to be taught right, so when they form the following one, there's no conflict between what parents/family say and what is taught in schools. But that takes more than a generation (cf. the evolution of racism, slavery, homophobia and so on and so forth) to dwell inside people and become common-place.

uno> Where the hell did I say to treat men and women differently? I said we're made differently, can you deny this fact? We don't work/think/[all the rest of the list] the same way. I'm not sanctioning whatever tendency there, nor judging about the values of differences, I'm explaining why things has been like that since as far as mankind can remember. You are extrapolating (the same way Dras did) how I think using only bits of posts and fill the blanks yourself.

Oh, and about the engineering thing. I didn't say it would give me greater powers of human spirit abilities. However, as any other scientific cursus, we're taught to think about things and analyse them in a rigorous, logical and rational way. Something helpful to have an insight about practical issues, even more when scientific elements are involved. I didn't say it was greater, I pointed at differences. But it seems being different here is a crime. We all have to think the same way (Dras' way apparently) and no one's allowed to see things differently.

Dras>

I didn't called you a terrorist writer Dras. I asked question in a way sarcastic enough I thought, because I supposed such a great debater like yourself would understand sarcasm and reduction ad absurdum, especially after having called me a sexist person empowering rapers. Now, to get back to that point, it is the job of the legislature to evaluate what risk can be handled individually and what must be regulated by laws. And these lines move (slowly) accordingly to the evolution of public opinion (that moves slowly as well). Like for everything else, such processes take time, especially if it's related to traditions. I only drew up an assessment of it and my initial opinion on the subject was way more clear before you began jumping on me.

So now, if you would stop being irritably aggressive with everyone, maybe your "debate opponents" wouldn't be forced to slippery grounds, where it's easy to call them slanderous names and where it's unfairly hard for my side to keep arguments clear. You keep nearly insulting me, assuming my answers on my behalf or counter-arguing using yourself as the almighty universal truth.

So I can't say the majority of rapes involve female victimes. If I dare to say there are less male rape than female, it implies I don't care and no one should either. I say public rapists have mental disorder, drunk/high people are in a weak state of mind that doesn't help at all and what? You talk about relatives doing incest and demonstrators burning cars? Either you just turn down what I say by calling it terrible, either you use unrelated arguments.

Your clitoris argument isn't valid as a counter-argument of my initial argument about biological rhythms because it's activity is fundamentally tied to ovulation clocks. As an evolutionary female echo of the male penis, it is sensitive to stimuli in a much wider timeframe of course, but that doesn't even contradicts at all my initial point.

So what else... I use exemples. It's not the same as yours (mowing your lawn topless/wandering alone at night) so mine is automagically crap?

"Would you care to actually quote all these supposed small comments that "add nothing" and "contradict myself" instead of just whining?"

My pleasure:

"I'm just born this way!" is a poor excuse for rape.

WTF? How did that was finding an excuse for rapers? The following sentence was making things clear (but oddly, you didn't quoted it). As long as you can't suppress people from turning into rapists, you have to take measures to protect potential victims.

None of which you have shown. Good job!

I think you missed 3/4 of the paragraph there... That wasn't even the complete sentence. I'm drawing up assessments, you feature it as an opinion by default, using the fallacious argument that I didn't made my point.

LOL WHAT. I never said that. I was responding to this v

Yeah, so you react to a quote of a message as a response to another quote... from the same message. "FLAWLESS"

And yes, you did accused me of being macho and such:

"Secondly, you're promoting the concept of restricting women "for their own good" instead of promoting taking action against the very forces you believe they should be protected from. Again, you are giving power to rapists and taking power from women."

"You are still suggesting restricting the rights of women rather than giving them a choice. Therefore you are treating them as objects that must have laws in place specifically surrounding them because they are too incompetant to deal with the world on their own. You are promoting victim-blaming and not promoting any deal of help to the hundreds or thousands of women who have been raped by friends of theirs without any provocation, clothes-wise or otherwise."

"No, he hasn't. By not telling men not to rape, and saying "oh well that's just how men are", you are contributing to victim shame."

If I have ideas that aren't to your liking, instead of insulting me we could debate about the ideas. But you're incapable of that. Whatever differs from you is wrong and vile. And if whoever gets anything wrong, he's un-undo-ably evil and is scum. You'll have sain debates with people when you'll stop assaulting other members of that forum here as if you were in a boxing match.

P.S:

Now, just before you call me sore loser, ragequiter or what not too, if you don't mind, I have a flight to Prague to catch, so I won't be around for the next 6 days (And I don't intend to go in the city of Dvorak and Mozart to stay stuck in a hotel room, virtually wrestling with a blindfolded offensive person such as you!)

And to be honest, I'm not looking forward to see how ill-faithly you'll have answered to this when I'll be back. So actually, since you feel like home and all powerful in the premises of the Counter-Point, unchallenged in term of aggressiveness and deaf-talks since the departure of Sabre, just babble what you like. Make it worth the wait at least!

[unoservix]

I find it really hilarious, Psygonis, that you are trying to say everyone else is like Sabre when you are basically doing everything he ever did. Poor logic. Playing the victim. Crying about how unfairly you're being treated when people counter your ill-conceived points. And now you're ragequitting.

But not only that, you're a liar! You started this whole thing by saying that this "no female toplessness" taboo is there to protect women. You said it right here:

So since seeing boobs and such can potentially exponentially increase the risk (mentally disordered persons you know...) for girls, it's the "better safe than sorry" policy applied there

You then asserted that women dressing "sluttily" motivates some people to rape them.

Such people can link girls dressed in a "slutty" way to prostitutes and then act against them like the way you described.

Some are actually just turned on by the "over"-sight of female flesh.

When someone pointed out that clothes don't get people raped, you said this:

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like NRA officials saying that it's people that kill people, not guns... It's true, but incomplete, and therefore invalid, when used as a statistical argument.

(which is also completely nonsensical; if it is true, it is by definition valid, because what any of us would call a true argument would be sound, and a sound argument cannot be sound if it isn't valid)

Then you said this:

It's not about restricting women, it's about trying to protect victims.

and when called on the double standard, you said this:

I guess that at the present time, most women seeing some men's nipples only statistically giggle, and that is not, as far as I know, a societal problem.

In defense of your assertion that women should be treated differently from men, you said this:

Also, you suggest males and females are built the same way, think the same way, act the same way... This is a lovely though, but it's not true. Different thought patterns induce different behaviors, so by extension different habits.

At this point, I would also like to add that in no way did you ever actually provide evidence for your claim that men and women are significantly different in such a way that necessitates there being different standards about their sexuality and expression thereof. You just took it for a given. But that's really the least of your problems, to be honest.

I'd also like to know why you think everyone repressing their sexuality is a good idea, but, yeah, you can't even keep this point straight so I'll just take what I can get.

Your argument, such as it's been, has been to claim that this taboo and its associated double-standard is warranted because men and women are different, and they are different in such a way that the only appropriate way to deal with that difference is to apply different standards to each. That is what you have said throughout this entire thread. You can go back and edit it all out to make it look different, as I know you will, but I think I got most of the important stuff.

You are basically Sabre reincarnated. Your logic is laughable: there are fallacies and shifting goalposts everywhere. You tried to claim this thread was about SFO's NSFW tag when it clearly and obviously is not; you tried to claim this was about nudism when it was about the double-standard between male and female toplessness (because men not wearing shirts is not considered nudism); you go off on irrelevant tangents about Greco-Roman views on masculinity and femininity and the changing depictions of Christ in art; you try to handwave all your ill-conceived insults as "sarcasm" while simultaneously and highly ironically displaying an impressive lack of understanding as to what "sarcasm" actually is; you make the fallacies of hasty generalization and poor analogy repeatedly in trying to generalize from biological to cognitive and social differences, and from there to differing moral standards; you bring up irrelevant and generally unsupported hypotheses about human behavior and cognition; and you quite rapidly devolve to ad hominem attacks, Mr. "You're Just Professionally Deformed, But as an Engineer I Know Better Than You." Yes, that is what you said; I know, you'll lie about that too, but it's already been quoted so you can't weasel your way out of it.

Yes, I can quite safely say that you're sexist. Your own words indict you quite clearly. As if that weren't enough, you brought up our genomes and the biological structures that regulate our differing reproductive systems--as though that has any bearing at all on this issue or the more general issue of how society should treat men and women. Why did I call you a sexist? Because of everything above, and because of that.

But above all that...then you start lying about it. And you're not even a good liar! I mean, the quotes are all right there, so you're like one of those politicians who doesn't seem to understand that we have this thing called "video" and we can catch them lying and stuff pretty easily. And since you've lied about everything you've said in this thread, I have no reason to believe you when you say you're going to Prague, so I'll go with the likelier scenario and say that you're just ragequitting, in true Sabre form. If there is anyone in this thread who's not acting in good faith, it's you, because you're being flagrantly dishonest about what your own argument. I'd be being generous if I assumed you were just a troll.

If you want to change your mind, fine. If you think you were saying something different and want to reword it so you don't sound like a sexist douchebag, fine. But if you're just going to be dishonest about it, well, hi, I still saw what you did there.

So don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[Thu'um]

this topic has completely lost focus of where its going, it has become litle more then upset play ground girls calling each other names for WHAT? abouslutly nothing. this was a very good topic with a very good social problem dras brought up and some how on this forum when ever to oppsosing sides come to gridlock they both just start acting childish.

so i have taken in alot of diffrent view points and here is what i think. Nudity isn't evil. thats absurd. however, there is a time and place for it. places like the beach or the pool are acceptable while places like school the office or church arn't so great. There is the problem of it being socialbly acceptable for a man to remove his shirt and woman not to be able to do the same. i prepose instead of giving them both nudity, make both keep their shirts on! anyway, as far as for the absurdities of saying that men are socialy conditioned to be attracted to breasts is absured. and to think exsposing the young of the next generations to breasts when their young is unsensible. the attraction to breasts is a natural human thing. just as the atraction to pretty face or an in shape body. a person can't be conditioned not to find woman's faces not attractive be being exspossed to them. so why would that work with breasts?

[unoservix]

If sexualization of female breasts is a natural thing, please explain the cultures around the world that don't do it.

Also, lol @ you of all people trying to call anyone "childish"

[Sarita]

Stop. With the ad hominem. Please. From ALL parties. This is a good topic, and good debate. You are all above this behavior.

And no, there is no drama here. So don't mislabel a debate as such. It's insulting.

[Milkyway64]

Whoa uno calm down a little bro.

[unoservix]

Man, you think that's bad, you should've seen the first draft of that post.

Anyways, AJC, you're still going to have to explain how sexualization of female breasts is natural when there are cultures that don't do it. Because if that's so, then the whole "it'll corrupt the children" argument falls apart.

[Drasiana]

Come on Xort, she did first both using sarcasm and making a fuss, acting as she didn't figured out I used it too.

Either we both can, either no one does.

I'm sorry I focused on Dras' fallacy in my post. (You jelly? )

Okay, let's stop here. I know English isn't your first language and you are clearly having problems understanding the meaning of sarcasm (and fallacy, apparently).

You used terrorism as a serious comparison to toplessness. You then on went to call me a terrorist. Even if you were joking, you were saying it within the context of attempting to make a serious point. Even if you were being sarcastic, it was the wrong place and the wrong time and it didn't make sense. But it did give me a hilarious new custom title, so thank you for that.

I didn't called you a terrorist writer Dras. I asked question in a way sarcastic enough I thought, because I supposed such a great debater like yourself would understand sarcasm and reduction ad absurdum, especially after having called me a sexist person empowering rapers.

Oh, you think I was being sarcastic? Well, there's your problem. No, I was not necessarily calling you a rapist, nor am I saying you are a conscious sexist. But I wasn't being sarcastic, either. The school of thinking--that it's women who have to be restricted because of the actions of other people--is what contributes to rape culture and victim-shaming. No, you are not sitting there going "LOL RAPE IS GOOD". But people who do think like that come from the same mindset.

They feel justified in rape because "the woman didn't protect herself well enough".

So now, if you would stop being irritably aggressive with everyone, maybe your "debate opponents" wouldn't be forced to slippery grounds, where it's easy to call them slanderous names and where it's unfairly hard for my side to keep arguments clear. You keep nearly insulting me, assuming my answers on my behalf or counter-arguing using yourself as the almighty universal truth.

You are the one who started hurling insults far before I did. For instance, I never once proclaimed to be better than you based on my profession. Nor did I call you a terrorist. In fact, I've done a good job of quoting everything I've responded to, so you can see exactly what has inflamed my responses! Try putting two and two together! Me saying something you don't like is not the same thing as insulting you.

So I can't say the majority of rapes involve female victimes. If I dare to say there are less male rape than female, it implies I don't care and no one should either. I say public rapists have mental disorder, drunk/high people are in a weak state of mind that doesn't help at all and what? You talk about relatives doing incest and demonstrators burning cars? Either you just turn down what I say by calling it terrible, either you use unrelated arguments.

1. I never said anything about incest, so, what

2. You dismissed me when I said male rape victims exist. I brought that up, because you are saying nudity provokes rapists, but men are allowed to walk around without shirts. If nudity promoted rape as you claim, wouldn't it be safer for men to not also not wear shirts? You said it doesn't matter, because there are less male victims. I quoted you saying that, so

3. You said all rapists have mental disorders. I asked for a source. You gave none.

4. You brought up alcohol/drug use increasing chances of rape. I said that they often impede sexual stimulation. They do also impede judgement; however, this is not a "dude gets drunk and decides it's raping time!" situation, this is a "being too impeded to be able to make a judgement call" moment. This often involves the woman not saying no. This in itself is another bag of worms, but if I smoke a joint I am not instantly going to metamorphose into a giant rapey machine, I'm probably going to want some chicken nuggets and the first season of Rugrats.

5. My mentioning the riots is far more related to this than terrorism. I brought it up, because the riots were an attempt to place the blame on something other than the person themselves. The blame was taken off the rioters and put on alcohol, just as the blame is taken off rapists and put on alcohol, "male impulses", or god forbid, the victim. However, the recent riots proved that the alcohol restrictions did nothing to prevent riots, because it was not the alcohol's fault. So putting restrictions on women are not going to prevent rape.

Your clitoris argument isn't valid as a counter-argument of my initial argument about biological rhythms because it's activity is fundamentally tied to ovulation clocks. As an evolutionary female echo of the male penis, it is sensitive to stimuli in a much wider timeframe of course, but that doesn't even contradicts at all my initial point.

Your initial point was that males can reproduce whenever, and that females only have a simple timeframe. That is true. However, that doesn't mean women can't be aroused at any other time, which you just said yourself. So it's a moot argument, when my point was that the reproduction cycle and the female sex drive don't necessarily rely on one another.

So what else... I use exemples. It's not the same as yours (mowing your lawn topless/wandering alone at night) so mine is automagically crap?

My example was in a practical situation. Walking around topless for no reason at night is not a practical situation.

WTF? How did that was finding an excuse for rapers? The following sentence was making things clear (but oddly, you didn't quoted it). As long as you can't suppress people from turning into rapists, you have to take measures to protect potential victims.

It is an excuse, dude. The thing is, the rape mindset CAN be changed, by not placing all blame and responsibility on the victims. The thing is, bad things happen to people all the time. Rape will happen forever, there's no getting around that, just as murder and thievery will. The point is making sure people know it's not okay to rape. This means not blaming the victim, which is what you do when you blame rape on the victim's clothing.

If I randomly get stabbed by some bum on the way home from work, that is not my fault. I got stabbed, and it sucks, but it's that asshole with the knife's fault. But if I get raped, suddenly people are looking at whatI was wearing at the time, and if it's anything other than baggy jeans in an overcoat, then suddenly I wasn't "defending myself" well enough and there need to be more "rules" to protect me.

I think you missed 3/4 of the paragraph there... That wasn't even the complete sentence. I'm drawing up assessments, you feature it as an opinion by default, using the fallacious argument that I didn't made my point.

I told you that you didn't cite any sources. You didn't. How is that fallacious?

I do not insult you in any of the quotes you then proceed to quote. I tell you that you are abiding by a detrimental and sexist mindset. You are, and that is what I am arguing. You are sitting there crying BAWWW UR WRONG! without proving why, simply stomping your feet and calling me Sabre and putting words in my mouth. Those quotes are repeating back to you things you yourself have said, so kindly* illustrated by sir Uno here. If somehow you are seeing me calling you macho, you are putting words in my mouth (un-doably evil and scum? When did I say that?). I don't think you're macho at all.

Quite the contrary.

By putting the responsibility of rapists on the rape victims, you are blaming them. You are demonizing expressions of female sexuality as being dangerous. And you are throwing a temper tantrum when I am telling you things that you do not want to hear.

But hey, at least I can handle the fact that other people disagree with me, instead of crying about how "offensive" someone is for not agreeing with everything I said. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by disagreeing with you.

* that was fucking sarcasm

Now, AJC.

nd to think exsposing the young of the next generations to breasts when their young is unsensible.

What are your thoughts on freaking breastfeeding?

[Faisul]

this topic has completely lost focus of where its going, it has become litle more then upset play ground girls calling each other names for WHAT? abouslutly nothing. this was a very good topic with a very good social problem dras brought up and some how on this forum when ever to oppsosing sides come to gridlock they both just start acting childish.

Sarcasm and snippyness, the mainstays of star fox forum debates.

so i have taken in alot of diffrent view points and here is what i think. Nudity isn't evil. thats absurd.

It is absolutely absurd, yes. Social conventions being what they are, nudity is unreasonably vilified.

however, there is a time and place for it. places like the beach or the pool are acceptable while places like school the office or church arn't so great.

Why do you think this is? It's not because nudity harms anyone - it just offends them because they've been taught to be offended by it. I have, you have, many people have, that's why we're having this debate in the first place. My argument is that, without that social conditioning, nudity would be, of course, far more widespread, and simply not discussed as a problem.

There is the problem of it being socialbly acceptable for a man to remove his shirt and woman not to be able to do the same. i prepose instead of giving them both nudity, make both keep their shirts on!

Yes! Repression for everyone! If both can't have the same freedom, take it away from everybody! This ignores the root of the problem - the place you usually go to fix a thing that's broken - and that's the inherent moral values of our society.

anyway, as far as for the absurdities of saying that men are socialy conditioned to be attracted to breasts is absured.

What's absurd? The statement that men are conditioned to be attracted to breasts, or that the absurdities of this statement are absurd? This sentence is absurd! We're in fucking bizarro world!

Human attraction to breasts is not a very well researched subject, and our fascination of tits makes us pretty unique in the animal kingdom, as far as I know. I do know that the standards as to what makes for hot titties has changed, a lot, over the course of human history, though. So has the obsession with covering them up.

Yes, I can say that men are socially conditioned to be attracted to a certain kind of breasts. You know, full, perky, bouncy tits. They're nice. I think they're nice. Dras thinks they're nice, everybody does. Well, maybe not everybody, but you know what I mean. However, the perkiness of mammaries weren't always so desireable. Do a google search for 'venus figurines' and you'll get a nice insight into what kind of breasts our ancestors were into. And breasts were far from the most desireable attributes of a woman back in the good old Paleolithic; hotties were fat. Very fat.

and to think exsposing the young of the next generations to breasts when their young is unsensible. the attraction to breasts is a natural human thing. just as the atraction to pretty face or an in shape body. a person can't be conditioned not to find woman's faces not attractive be being exspossed to them. so why would that work with breasts?

Kids don't look as breasts as sexual because they mean food to them. Breasts being bared in public being a terrible offense is just a relic of obsolete and quite frankly stupid notions of 'properness' and 'modesty.' Some African countries, if I recall correctly, believe that the thigh of all things is the most offensive part of the human anatomy, and that it must be covered up above all else. Boobs? Not so much. The argument that children must be protected from a sight that is only sexual to people far older than themselves is dumb. If a woman breastfeeds in public, is she molesting her own child? Or is she simply feeding her kid, but also causing irreparable mental harm to a child a few years older by breastfreeding where the seven-year-old can see her? Is a sow nursing her piglets an abomination? It's a construct of our society, it being an amalgamation of many preceding societies, and their norms, stretching back thousands of years, and nothing more.

Also, boobies are nice. I would like to see more boobies.

[Vy'drach]

Not gonna get in the middle of you two, but I will add this to the general debate.

Hopefully this comic is alright, large portion of the breast is exposed, but not the nipple.

NSFW WARNING

Granted it's in a fantasy setting with magical werewolves (and magic in general), and all sorts of other things, but the idea is the same, and it's actually based on a true story, as Mookie, the author and artist, says for it.

Anyway.

Nimmel's plight is, sadly, based upon a true story.

A few years ago I rented a room in a house with some folks who shared the werewolves' penchant for walking around with little to no clothes on, as did their circle of friends. At first I was ecstatic, and for good reason. I met many attractive women who, within minutes of being introduced for the first time, would take their clothes off and just hang out. For a time, as a single guy, it was a dream come true.

But having regular access to anything that was once elusive soon takes away its lure. After a time that level of nudity just became expected, and for awhile it was... until that fateful day when I was just sitting around having a chat with a naked woman and I realized that I was totally unfazed by it.

I, like Nimmel, had become immune to boobs.

Whether or not I'm immune to boobs in anything but a casual context is another story for another day. Maybe.

That's all from me for now.

It'd stop being such a big, taboo thing, and people would move on about it. People would still be attracted to breasts normally, though maybe in a better setting than just, "Boobs ahoy!" but people are also attracted to a myriad of other things, buttocks, midriff, hands, legs, feet, face, eyes, mouth, etc. etc. and those are generally allowed to be exposed in public.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't care for full-fledged nudity to be allowed on either side just for the matter of hygiene. But as for toplessness, I don't see it as a problem for anything more than people yelling, "WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM THE NATURAL HUMAN BODY!"

[Asper Sarnoff]

We want to encourage debates that are giving to all parties involved in it, rather than those people get into with the mindset that it's a war, and one they must win no matter what.

I therefore want to stress that you should not resort to flinging insults, use ad-hominem, and strive to not turn the heat up any more in this debate, least we'll be forced to take action.

[Faisul]

But...! But...!

Shucks, alright. My summary below:

We've already discussed the poor basis for the fear of breasts and the inherent frailty of arguments for continuing the trend of demanding boobs being covered, but allowing male chests to be exposed. We have, I believe, identified the moral fundaments of our society, their roots being in ancient religious and cultural sentiments, as the prime source for this disdain towards public boobery. We've identified the argument that by covering the breasts, the women are less likely to be raped, as false. What's left?

Of course, I'm representing 'my side' or 'my interpretation' of the debate. No one is changing their opinions about it, because opinions on what would be best, hiding the breasts or displaying the breasts, are such deeply rooted parts of our upbringing in our respective cultures. Also, many of the arguments made here come from divergent camps of feminism and chauvinism, who are dependent on varying degrees of breaking free from or sticking to cultural adherences. Changing these opinions are hard, because they require an honest and unrelenting scrutiny of one's own cultural and moral values.

So it's easy to resort to ad-hominem attacks in such debates, because when you believe the only way for the opposition to reassess their opinion is to strike at their moral core (and thus their person), you'll do just that. And the more people are emotionally invested in their respective opinions, it becomes exponentially harder for them to accept the possibility that they might just simply be wrong.

I'm prepared to agree to disagree on the matter with many of the players in this debate, However, I am not prepared to agree with ignorance. I suggest we study a detailed, comprehensive, and exhaustive gallery of breasts, as to better understand the subject matter. When we have done so and relieved ourselves of our tensions and reacquainted ourselves with our appreciation of the mammaries of our species, we can merrily resume our discussion in a civil, contented manner.

[Drasiana]

As an addendum to what Faisul said in direction to AJC, then how, AJC, do you explain the existence of women attracted to breasts?

We want to encourage debates that are giving to all parties involved in it, rather than those people get into with the mindset that it's a war, and one they must win no matter what.

Oh, don't worry, the only one who was really doing that "went to Prague" :B The topic has snapped back to remarkable civility, whodathunk.

[myu]

FINALLY I HAVE GOTTEN TO PAGE 4. I also want to just say that I'm glad Dras made this thread :> Anyway, WARNING: myu tries to maybe debate but is bad at these things.

I'm just going to throw in my two cents, as someone who has taken several life drawing classes - which were co-ed - and has had to stare at various naked forms of both genders for several hours at a time. Yes, it took some getting used to having a men and women walk into our classroom and disrobe and then strike a - not always conservative - pose for all to see. Yes, breasts were out there for all to see, and the women we drew were attractive, but none of the guys in that class took it upon themselves to throw down their sketch pads and saunter up to the model and get all up on her because she just happened to be nude. In short, nudity is only a big deal because people make it a big deal. Maybe I've just been "desensitized" to nudity because I'm an "artist." But really, these days it's not uncommon for people, even children, to see a bare breast, so I do agree that most of the attraction of breasts comes from them being some weird taboo thing.

Also, I think that the people who were saying that they see women being naked in public forums as slutty (I would consider a classroom as a public place) are a bit confused with what is slutty and what might be considered, I don't know, tempting. Maybe it's just my personal interpretation of the word, but "slutty" is a way in which you would conduct yourself - in this case, when you're naked I guess - as opposed to just being naked. There was a point where I was in Mexico, and some woman was trying to sell us something because we were tourists. She had a baby in her arms and then, ALL OF A SUDDEN, she just whipped out her breast, nipple and all, and started breast feeding. Now, I won't lie, I was taken aback because who expects that to happen, but no one else in the area gave it a second thought. And this was a rather crowded place. Would you call her slutty for "exposing herself" like that?

As for the NSFW policy, there is a double standard, and there's tasteful nudity and then there's "vulgar" nudity. You can show breasts and other naughty bits without it being vulgar, but I don't think breasts should be a concern, especially when there's so much else a parent would probably be more worried about. Like "vulgar" language maybe.

[unoservix]

Really, I would think the NSFW policy is there as an acknowledgement that people who have the ability to fire you because there were nipples on your screen do not agree with us anyways.

[Faisul]

^And then there's that, I guess. Money talks, risk of termination shouts.

[LoneWolf]

not sure how respond to thread

[Drasiana]

Then don't respond?

I will now proceed to guffaw with much gusto over the forum labelling this topic "hot".

[Vy'drach]

Then don't respond?

I will now proceed to guffaw with much gusto over the forum labelling this topic "hot".

It has become self-aware!

Screw the children, save the ponies! Run for the hills!

[Steve]

This topic is good. And no, not because it talks about boobs (you wish...), it's mostly because almost everyone here is posting good arguments, something we hardly see in the forum. Of course, some insults are pretty much off-hand, but so far, no one has committed murder.

[Harlow]

A question for female members who support this. If any law or document's approved about going topless in some places (e.g: beaches), would you be willing to do it? Not attacking anyone or anything wrong, just curious.

[Milkyway64]

We've had 2 say no, including Dras. That much is down to the person, their habbits, what they are comfortable in and around, etc.

[Xortberg]

Plus I doubt there'd be a whole lot who would anyway, because the while the law would allow it, it'd take quite some time for the public perception of it all to change.