8 ms·

that argument wouldn't work with native tribes. These things are entirely cultural and specifically judeo-christian. From the the ancient Minoans who portray th

that argument wouldn't work with native tribes. These things are entirely cultural and specifically judeo-christian. From the the ancient Minoans who portray their women usually barebreasted, to the greeks and romans , to many non-western societies, it is the prominent puritanism of anglosaxon cultures that is sticking out as an exception, not the other way around.

bitL 6y ago
Take it another way: would you prevent your boys from having one more erotogenous zone to explore on their partner when they are adult just so that you could explore it everywhere now? Would you be so selfish to be able to experience it now but prevent your kids from ever experiencing it?
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Sorry that’s one of the most ridiculous arguments for oppressing everyone, and partially applied. Why not cover men’s nipples too?
  - bitL 6y ago
    We should cover sports cars, those make females excited. Not male nipples.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      and six-packs
      - bitL 6y ago
        ...but only if they are of Magic Mike size, larger ones are repulsive (I was told).
- saagarjha 6y ago
  There are people that fetishize feet, so I’m not sure your argument can even be supported even if it wasn’t such a strange reach.
  - bitL 6y ago
    ...and balloons. I was surprised to learn that having a bunch of balloons next to models is a fetish to some as well.
    - cblconfederate 6y ago
      I 'm pretty sure the universe of fetishes is infinite and probably expanding. I wonder if there's research on that.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  So, perhaps we should cover ears, necks, and lips too? Backs too, can't forget that. No sandals. Don't forget men, too: They really need to cover up more. Especially their nipples. Beaches are going to be a real bummer and more uncomfortable. Perhaps we should require loose swimwear and increase risk of drowning while we are at it. Nudity isn't going to take away any of these zones. You children are going to experience things differently than you, and nudity isn't going to encourage or prevent it.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
That something is routinely exposed is not evidence that it isn't considered sexually exciting. You know what part of a woman is always, without exception, considered a major part of her sex appeal? Her face. But faces stay exposed almost everywhere.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  Sure, a person is attractive in many ways. The nudity policy in media however is utterly ridiculous. Butts are allowed nipplee are not , but breastfeeding is probably ok, bikinis are ok, but not if too wet , etc etc. Tech is perpetuating the Victorian era in the most comical, backwards fashion
reaperducer 6y ago
that argument wouldn't work with native tribes. These things are entirely cultural and specifically judeo-christian You must have a cartoon sense of "native tribes," because this existed in many "native tribes" and other cultures around the world before the first missionaries arrived.

bitL 6y ago

Take it another way: would you prevent your boys from having one more erotogenous zone to explore on their partner when they are adult just so that you could explore it everywhere now? Would you be so selfish to be able to experience it now but prevent your kids from ever experiencing it?

cblconfederate 6y ago
Sorry that’s one of the most ridiculous arguments for oppressing everyone, and partially applied. Why not cover men’s nipples too?
- bitL 6y ago
  We should cover sports cars, those make females excited. Not male nipples.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    and six-packs
    - bitL 6y ago
      ...but only if they are of Magic Mike size, larger ones are repulsive (I was told).
saagarjha 6y ago
There are people that fetishize feet, so I’m not sure your argument can even be supported even if it wasn’t such a strange reach.
- bitL 6y ago
  ...and balloons. I was surprised to learn that having a bunch of balloons next to models is a fetish to some as well.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    I 'm pretty sure the universe of fetishes is infinite and probably expanding. I wonder if there's research on that.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
So, perhaps we should cover ears, necks, and lips too? Backs too, can't forget that. No sandals. Don't forget men, too: They really need to cover up more. Especially their nipples. Beaches are going to be a real bummer and more uncomfortable. Perhaps we should require loose swimwear and increase risk of drowning while we are at it. Nudity isn't going to take away any of these zones. You children are going to experience things differently than you, and nudity isn't going to encourage or prevent it.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

That something is routinely exposed is not evidence that it isn't considered sexually exciting. You know what part of a woman is always, without exception, considered a major part of her sex appeal? Her face. But faces stay exposed almost everywhere.

cblconfederate 6y ago
Sure, a person is attractive in many ways. The nudity policy in media however is utterly ridiculous. Butts are allowed nipplee are not , but breastfeeding is probably ok, bikinis are ok, but not if too wet , etc etc. Tech is perpetuating the Victorian era in the most comical, backwards fashion

reaperducer 6y ago

that argument wouldn't work with native tribes. These things are entirely cultural and specifically judeo-christian You must have a cartoon sense of "native tribes," because this existed in many "native tribes" and other cultures around the world before the first missionaries arrived.