RE: The "Free The Nipple Movement" Main Argument Destroyed - How sad is it that we even have to contest this?
If the core of your argument were true, and exposed breasts lead to increased disconnection between males and females, resulting in a culling of the population, we would have ceased to exist as a species long before we invented clothing. The early European explorers should have found tropical islands empty of humans, Hawaiian volcanoes with no populations, empty African villages, and Amazon rain forests devoid of people.
That was not the case. Instead. the instant male sexual stimulation at the sight of bare breasts has much more to do with preventing every day exposure, due to religious dogma and keeping breasts covered.
It seems that maybe your theory is based more on Euro-religious dogma than actual history or science.
I think that you may need to rethink your hypothesis.
Free the people and their nipples? Yes, please!
Thats not the point. There i a line. There always has to be a line. Why not just go full on nude right now? Why not just have sex in public, in front of children? I mean it is natural right? The point is that American culture is not ready to push that line that far.
It is one of the idiocies of modern Liberal culture to just erase all lines and attempt to go full on Utopic with ideals. We have to draw lines for a reason, and a heavily sexed up culture like the United States has no business having nude people walking the streets. We are not mature enough to handle it.
And I have talked to these types of women who do shit like this. These are not girlfriend material. These women are fucked in the head on so many levels. They are attention whores to the max, and they would be nightmares to deal with.
The problem with our "sexed up culture" is due, in large part to soap operas during daytime hours, where actors have sex in front of any children that happen to be in one of the living rooms where the program is on, and the advertisers that use sex to sell every product advertised, including skittles candy. It is done with the suggestion of sex, and use of sexual images in onslaughts of advertising we allow our children to be exposed to from the time they can focus visually on any TV screen, billboard, or any other medium. No nudity is required, the sexual innuendo is even more effective in most cases.
Why is the line you desire focused on female breasts? It sounds more than a bit misogynistic to me. You don't believe that women can be sexually aroused by a bare male chest and nipples? My nipples get erect when it is cold or if they are physically stimulated, exactly the same as female nipples. Shouldn't you be calling for ALL nipples to be covered, if it is indeed a sexual issue?
The mistake you make is equating nudity with sex. The two are very different. While sex is most often performed while nude, nudity is not required. Likewise, being nude, topless or completely, in public or in private, does not infer that sex will be taking place, or even being offered.
There is nothing wrong with being nude in the presence of children in a public setting, having sex in front of children is not natural. You are making a false equivalence. We are back to religious dogma.
As far as using "We", when discussing maturity, that pronoun may not be very accurate. I believe that most adults are mature enough to handle nudity, with the exceptions being the small minority. I have been to nudist camps, topless and nude beaches, and prefer to be nude any time weather permits. The sight of bare breasts or bodies alone does not cause sexual excitement, nor have I ever not been mature enough to handle myself in any of those situations.
If you do not believe that you are mature enough, then just use "I", instead of "we", because you are in the minority.
I never made any comment about feminists specifically, so I am not sure what you are responding to in the last paragraph of your reply. I do find your use of the word "whores" telling, however. Again with the religious dogma, "The Whore of Babylon".
If you are not interested in pursuing a relationship with a female that is comfortable enough with her own body to not have to cloak it in multiple layers of clothing, then that is your choice. I would be willing to bet that you have not met or talked to enough of theses "types" of women to make an informed decision. Even if you had, you have not listened to them.
It seems you would be much more of a nightmare for them to deal with, quite honestly. They are not seeking legally mandated nudity, but you are defending legally mandating that they cover parts of their body that you are uncomfortable with. Removing one legal inequality is not exactly "full on Utopic", even if "Utopic" was a real word.
There are some major cities (New York City for one), that have already removed the restrictions on breasts, and guess what? Not much happened. The immature fall over each other to get a pic of the boobs, but the majority of people just continue with their lives without giving much attention.
The indigenous peoples around the world have handled nudity much longer than the religious types have outlawed it. Makes one wonder which is the more advanced society, doesn't it?
"Why is the line you desire focused on female breasts? It sounds more than a bit misogynistic to me."
Did you not read the only point made in this article? Men are hardwired to be attracted to womens breasts. Breast say "come fuck me". 100% supported by science.
I have never heard a breast say anything.
And if you do some real research into the subject you will find that the breasts stay even from before pregnancy to mimic the women's buttocks. In fact, given the proper angle and distance, one can not tell the difference between butt cleavage and boob cleavage. It allows the women to attract a mate for procreation from front and back. Every part of a woman's exterior is deigned with that purpose in mind, as is every part of a man's exterior designed to attract a female.
Breasts are not super sexual anywhere but your mind, and a man's chest can be just as stimulating and distracting to a female.
Equally designed, equally attractive, equally distracting. Their display should be equally unregulated.
If you cannot mentally handle the distraction and feel that it fucks with your "Natural" impulses, (that have been unnaturally programmed since your birth), it is you that should be restricted or controlled, not the females.
"The indigenous peoples around the world have handled nudity much longer than the religious types have outlawed it. Makes one wonder which is the more advanced society, doesn't it?"
No actually.
Those societies dont advance. They stay in one place, beautiful as their civilizations may be, but they stay in one place.
Those societies were based. They were not densely populated with people making marvels. As a man, I have too many things to focus on throughout my day than have sexual triggers everywhere. My life is easier and more focused without having my natural impulses fucked with.
Advanced is a very subjective term. Toys define advancement? I believe that any society that can exist in balance with nature is more advanced than our destructive society. Nearly every "Marvel" that we enjoy comes because of our war culture. From cell phones, telecommunication, Internet, GPS, to miracle medical procedures, trauma treatments, prosthetics, etc., all have their roots in war, a concept not very advanced at all, IMHO, and all destroy a piece of our shared environment to produce and maintain.
That being said I noticed that you deftly attempted to ignore the fact that full or partial nudity in these cultures is not distracting, nor does it "fuck with natural impulses".
I would also say that there are more sexually distracting and destructive influences in our culture than women's nipples.
Just for fun, how about make-up? What purpose does it serve to darken the eyes, color the lips red and make them shiny, blush the cheeks, etc? HMMM. All of those imitated effects occur during sexual arousal and orgasm.
Where is your outrage over cosmetics?
Next what about push up bras, lingerie, low necklines and high skirts, tight pants, or heels?
Enhancing and or displaying all of what our society defines as the sexual areas. Everyone I have ever known is distracted by camel toe... No outrage over the fashion industry?
Seems to me that these "sexual triggers" (interesting terminology) are much more prevalent and to me are much more effective than displaying breasts.
Take off the bra and cleavage usually disappears, the breasts hang, remove the make-up and blemishes, pale eyes, cheek and lips are obvious and less attractive for the men indoctrinated from birth into our society. Take off the high heels and stockings, don't shave the legs, and the buttocks are less enhanced, the legs are hairy and appear shorter. Where is the outrage about high heels or women displaying shaved legs?
If we are to remove every possible "Trigger" for males in our society, then I guess we should start mass producing netted burqas, or maybe we should lock the females up at home, deny them the right to travel exposed and unescorted?
Or maybe we should not allow females to ever be in public at all, some guys may be triggered by the burqas after all, and since you seem to believe we should be legislating the appearance of the females (The triggers), not the actions of the males (response to personal Triggers), it is the only logical conclusion I can come to.