Why are breasts considered "private" parts? page 5

167 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Sacrificing freedoms for small amounts of safety?

Public safety. Remember that while a law shouldn’t enforce a person to make himself more safe, it should enforce a person to make others safer. That’s exactly the reason why freedoms are “sacrificed”. Really, though, I wouldn’t call it so much of a freedom when most people would rather not do it. It’s against those who would.

How much safety does it really damage, I’ve been on beaches in Sweden and women are allowed to tan topless and many do. (And I was 14 at the time… it was like heaven). I didn’t get any diseases. What health risk does it pose? I am just saying if it isn’t very dangerous why conrol it?

 
Flag Post

Might be worth noting that a bared male chest can be just as arousing for an androphile [attracted to adult males] as bared female breasts are to a gynephile [attracted to adult females].

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Syneil:

Might be worth noting that a bared male chest can be just as arousing for an androphile as bared female breasts are to a gynephile.

I don’t know what either of those things are… but I can get aroused by women with clothes on sometimes if they are really attractive.

 
Flag Post

I am just saying if it isn’t very dangerous why conrol it?

It’s not just health reasons. Societal reasons are worth looking into as well. Technically, any law is based purely on what a lot of people want, or need (according to experts on that field). If society generally doesn’t like seeing naked people running around, then that might get a ban. I can already hear you sputter from over here. Don’t. That’s your opinion. Many feel different. It’s how society works.

Let’s give an extreme example. Why is murder illegal? Not because there’s some objective rule stating nobody can be killed. It’s because we as a society demand it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Stiltonchees:
Originally posted by Syneil:

Might be worth noting that a bared male chest can be just as arousing for an androphile as bared female breasts are to a gynephile.

I don’t know what either of those things are… but I can get aroused by women with clothes on sometimes if they are really attractive.

First: Look up those words….learn their meanings…expand your “data base”.

Second: I don’t know what YOU mean by “get aroused”. BUT, for me…a woman I find “attractive” does constitute a range of arousal….after all, I AM male. This “arousal” can be a mere “head-turning” interest….or it can be a HUGE: I just gotta “nail” that. What part of “attractive” (ATTRACTION) do ya not understand? I’m assuming ya mean “sexually”.

Third: There are clothes and then there are “clothes”. Women can either downplay their “sex appeal” w/ their choice of attire,,,OR, they can most certainly enhance it.

 
Flag Post

Sacrificing freedoms for small amounts of safety? Why. I am pretty sure it is legal to be naked in public in Sweden, but I haven’t seen anyone naked there. Just because nudity is legal doesn’t mean people will all go naked. If we legalized toplessness I’m sure a few feminists would go topless for a while just to stick it to the men, then they’d realize that all it accomplishes is people complaining or people making pervy remarks and they’ll put their tops back on.

It is illegal to have your genitals out in the open, the rest of your body is legal. I believe the reason for this is both because it is provocative, but also that, well, its considered not very fresh to rub your genitals to everything in your path. But as I understand it, being topless is fully legal. And if you have a strong urge to show off your genitals there’s always the nudist camp just outside of my city.

Although, now that I think of it, it might not be illegal to be fully nude either. Or, it is, but no one really cares to report it anyway. I’d be surprised if you’re able to walk by a police fully nude without him doing anthing about it tho. Nudity is totally legal to show on TV at least, and I’ve seen lots of shows where people run around naked in public.

I’m going to have to disagree. It has been said by others in this thread, but clothing protects against certain diseases from spreading more easily, for example. That means it can definitely harm others by going around naked.

I dont think your genitals spread even close to as much bacteria and viruses as your hands, but since we live in a democracy, and the majority believe dicks and vaginas are dirty things, it is considered as a hazardous risk. Although that’s not the main reason its illegal I’d say.

 
Flag Post

That’s why the first reason I named to bring it up is that it’s a nice side-effect to reduce risk, even though it’s not gigantic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

That’s why the first reason I named to bring it up is that it’s a nice side-effect to reduce risk, even though it’s not gigantic.

Ofcourse, but it doesnt hold at all as an argument. It can at most be considered as a bonus. The only real reason I see to ban nudity is because it is provocative. And as long as the majority find it provocative, it shall stay banned from public.

 
Flag Post

[conservative reactionary]Hell, the way the society is progressing, I’m sure bare breasts will be legal soon, just like all that filth we see on the tee-vee.[conservative reactionary]

Edit: Ninja’d (sort of) by Sweden!

Originally posted by Criks:

Sacrificing freedoms for small amounts of safety? Why. I am pretty sure it is legal to be naked in public in Sweden, but I haven’t seen anyone naked there. Just because nudity is legal doesn’t mean people will all go naked. If we legalized toplessness I’m sure a few feminists would go topless for a while just to stick it to the men, then they’d realize that all it accomplishes is people complaining or people making pervy remarks and they’ll put their tops back on.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I am just saying if it isn’t very dangerous why conrol it?

It’s not just health reasons. Societal reasons are worth looking into as well. Technically, any law is based purely on what a lot of people want, or need (according to experts on that field). If society generally doesn’t like seeing naked people running around, then that might get a ban. I can already hear you sputter from over here. Don’t. That’s your opinion. Many feel different. It’s how society works.

Let’s give an extreme example. Why is murder illegal? Not because there’s some objective rule stating nobody can be killed. It’s because we as a society demand it.

Well I guess your point is legitimate. But the way I see it then there are certain things that cause actual harm to others, murder, theft, rape, ect. These need to be banned. Then there are things that don’t nudity seems to be one of those things, because sure it might make you uncomfortable, but then so can people swearing, but that alone is not a reason to ban it. When a majority goes ahead in enforcing a moral code on others where the action in question does not do any real harm to others, then it is really no different from if all the Christians, Muslims and Jews in our country got together and banned the Bahai faith because not enough of the voting force supported it and according to Christianity, Islam and Judaism the faith is false and wrong to believe in. This would be oppressing a minority group simply for disagreeing with you. Of course there is still debate over what kind of nudity equates to sexual assault, but I think just being naked is not assaulting anyone.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Because men love them so much.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by SaintAjora:

I do, however, maintain the belief that any sort of repression (anatomy, in this case) is a negative influence in the world.

I get the feeling repression isn’t the word you really want to use there, but I’ll run with it.

Does that include repression of aggressive impulses? Should people lash out violently whenever we feel frustrated?
How about repression of envy? Should people just take what they want when they want it?

Society can’t function without repression of certain things. From that perspective it isn’t just a positive influence, it is a necessary one.

Now what is being repressed might vary, but that is going to be a social norm and not some universal rule.

Yeah, I agree repression might not be the best word choice. I’m not sure that Nick Walker’s point can be explained by one word, but by an idiom phrase: “Sweep under the rug.” That any anatomy should be a non-existent reality, “swept under the rug,” or, as John Goodman’s character, Roseanne Conner’s husband Dan, so simply put it about Crystal after she was breastfeeding: “Crystal’s my friend. As far as I’m concerned, she has no breasts! … It works for me, okay?”
So I think Walker meant that going on in life pretending, so-to-speak, that parts of anatomy (or bodily functions, for that matter) don’t exist just isn’t healthy. I’m quite sure in several cases these days and some cases even in the Victorian Era, it’s been thought by curious minds: “Under-rug sweeping isn’t really fooling anyone.”
Nick Walker, how am I doing at helping explain your point?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Bassball_Batman:

Nick Walker, how am I doing at helping explain your point?

Wouldn’t hold your breath on getting that question answered, you’re quoting posts from two years ago.

In fact I’m not entirely sure why you bumped a 2 year old thread to try and rephrase a random post from it…

 
Flag Post

How does one even find a two year old post? Searching ‘breasts’ mayhaps? Hehehe.

 
Flag Post

Because we aren’t all pedophiles.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Because we aren’t all pedophiles.

I wasn’t aware that your breasts shrunk when you grew older.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Because we aren’t all pedophiles.

What do feet have to do with anything?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Because we aren’t all pedophiles.

What do feet have to do with anything?

Because, apparently, “pedo” means either “feet” or “child” whenever it feels like. The English language is stupid like that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Because we aren’t all pedophiles.

What do feet have to do with anything?

Because, apparently, “pedo” means either “feet” or “child” whenever it feels like. The English language is stupid like that.

Oh, paedophile.

I still don’t get PatriotSaint’s post at all, if it refers to feet or kids :/

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

Oh, paedophile.

I still don’t get PatriotSaint’s post at all, if it refers to feet or kids :/

I would assume kids because that’s what pedophile usually refers to, but that also doesn’t make any sense because most kids don’t actually have large, fatty breasts.

Honestly, I think he just has a knack for being vague and confusing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:
Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Because we aren’t all pedophiles.

I wasn’t aware that your breasts shrunk when you grew older.

Yeah….shrink, wrinkle, sag, & get all “floppy”.
Well, except for men….theirs just get BIGGER and flabby.

The good news is that our noses & our ears continue to grow all our lives. And, due to gravity, the ear lobes sag, get longer, and make the ears look even bigger. So yeah ladies, let’s ensure beauty in your “old age” by wearing those big, heavy ear rings.
LOL

Originally posted by tenco1:

Honestly, I think he just has a knack for being vague and confusing.

It is much easier to appear to know what ya’re talkin’bout by using that way….LOL
That is….as opposed to showing that ya really haven’t a clue by being succinct about your offerring.

Side note: I’m surprised our Canadian friend(s) on the forum haven’t weighed in on breast-exposure there
Maybe they don’t want to “share”.
LOL

 
Flag Post

There needs to be clothes over womens’ breasts, because otherwise you might get an ugly sight from an obese woman when you are on a bus, or doing the shopping. WHO THE HELL WANTS TO SEE THAT?!?!?!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Destructible13:

There needs to be clothes over womens’ breasts, because otherwise you might get an ugly sight from an obese woman when you are on a bus, or doing the shopping. WHO THE HELL WANTS TO SEE THAT?!?!?!

Well.. no one wants to see ugly people either.. or obese people through a tight shirt, but we still don’t infringe on their freedom right?