3 ms·

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but is that really the answer? Should we not also ask the question of why exposed male nipples are acceptable? If male nipple

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but is that really the answer? Should we not also ask the question of why exposed male nipples are acceptable? If male nipples are not considered sexual but female nipples are, and we permit exposed female nipples in public, then does it also follow that the male penis be allowed to be exposed in public? Do "free the nipple" folks feel the same way about that, and why?

SteveNuts 5y ago
Breasts are secondary sex characteristics, genitalia is not, genitals are purely sexual.
- semi-extrinsic 5y ago
  I don't know about you, but personally I also use my genitals for other things than sex.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  That begs a question, though. What makes a primary sexual characteristic objectionable over a secondary one? I don't think anyone gets aroused (or disgusted) by either genitalia or breasts because there's a conscious awareness that they have something to do with biological reproduction.
notyourwork 5y ago
Jumping from nipples to penis seems like a bit of a stretch, don't it?
- rcoveson 5y ago
  Depends on how you're positioned.
mediaman 5y ago
I'm sorry, but linking this to genitalia doesn't make any sense. Society prohibits the exposure of genitalia for both men and women. Although it's certainly up for debate whether that's reasonable or not, the treatment is equal. And at least genitalia perform a sexual function, so if the principle is that we shouldn't show organs with a primarily sexual function, for whatever reason, at least there's some sort of principle at work. The issue of the nipple is completely separate and indefensible. The nipple has very similar appearance for both sexes; it performs no sexual function, and the one function it does have for women is something that has no obvious moral basis to prohibit. To wit: adults eating in public is fine, children eating in public is fine, but, for some reason, a baby eating in its natural form in public is not fine. I agree with OP. It's nuts and we will likely see this view relaxed over time, though I have no idea how long of a time horizon.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  What you are saying demonstrates exactly why I posed the questions. 1. It's usually stated as a matter of fact that primary sex organs possess inherent qualities that make them reasonably objectionable in a way that is not attributable to secondary sex characteristics, but few are actually articulating why that is, which is important for an argument differentiating the two. 2. Genitalia are considered acceptable in an artistic form, as is likely seen in the art this museum posts on social media. This appears rather contrary to the idea that genitalia should be hidden, thus art may not be a good argument for allowing exposed female secondary sex characteristics (as art is treated as a special case). Now people seem to be getting me wrong... I'm NOT in favor of criminalizing the female nipple in any way. > The issue of the nipple is completely separate and indefensible. The nipple has very similar appearance for both sexes; it performs no sexual function, and the one function it does have for women is something that has no obvious moral basis to prohibit. To wit: adults eating in public is fine, children eating in public is fine, but, for some reason, a baby eating in its natural form in public is not fine. No, they are not completely separate. They are all based on a root assumption that is not being adequately challenged. The assumption is that, to take your argument, there is something inherently acceptable about eating, because everyone eats and has mouths, and that there is something inherently objectionable about characteristics primarily related to sex even when the act of intercourse is not taking place. Unless that question is broached, then your point about eating could also be applied to sexual organs. The only difference being that sexual organs have different appearances between males and females, but placing value on whether they differentiate in appearance is also arbitrary.
humpday69 5y ago
In the article's context of classical art yes many famous paintings and sculptures show penises.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  I was responding in particular to the commenter's point about the acceptability of nudity beyond the context of art.
standardUser 5y ago
I think this is a "one step at a time" situation. Nipples are obvious. No cogent argument can be made in favor of banning only female chests. Genitalia are different because they can be sexualized. I'd argue that a flaccid penis is not a sexualized thing and should not be censored. But what about an erect penis? And what precisely constitutes an erection? Point being, there's a lot of gray area and genuinely tough questions that will need to be answered when it comes to genitalia. But the nipple issue is about as black and white as any issue can get.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  I really appreciate your non-judgmental response. :) > No cogent argument can be made in favor of banning only female chests. I'm unsure if that's really true. As I've already mentioned elsewhere here, these arguments are all based on assumptions that are being made as a matter of fact. For instance: > Genitalia are different because they can be sexualized. Is that necessarily true? Breasts are frequently sexualized, which makes me question whether that sexualization is entirely cultural or not. On the other hand, male chests are rarely sexualized in nearly the same way outside of relatively minority communities. Yet they can be as well. I wonder these things because the further down the chain of logic, the more it just seems arbitrary, in which case why are we rationalizing and intellectualizing this issue in order to explain it away? In such a case, it really isn't possible to make a cogent argument in favor of allowing exposed female breasts, because it would come down to what society is irrationally comfortable or uncomfortable with.
malermeister 5y ago
Yes. All of it should be okay. Relax, it's just human bodies. What's so terrible about it? We see all sorts of animals naked all the time, what's so special about homo sapiens? Should we make dogs and cats wear clothes too? Nudism is a relatively big thing in German culture [1], there's a park in munich for example that's clothing-optional. The world hasn't ended yet and Germany seems to be doing just fine, so why get all worked up about it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur
- ravenstine 5y ago
  > What's so terrible about it? To be clear, I never said there was anything terrible about it. [edited to be less standoffish]
  - malermeister 5y ago
    That wasn't directed at you in specific, but more at certain segments of society in general.
    - ravenstine 5y ago
      Oh, gotcha.
- dashundchen 5y ago
  Plenty of FKK swimming in the eastern states as well. A day at the beach is a lot better when you can hop in and out of the water without worrying about a wet swimsuit, and warm your whole body in the sun.

SteveNuts 5y ago

Breasts are secondary sex characteristics, genitalia is not, genitals are purely sexual.

semi-extrinsic 5y ago
I don't know about you, but personally I also use my genitals for other things than sex.
ravenstine 5y ago
That begs a question, though. What makes a primary sexual characteristic objectionable over a secondary one? I don't think anyone gets aroused (or disgusted) by either genitalia or breasts because there's a conscious awareness that they have something to do with biological reproduction.

notyourwork 5y ago

Jumping from nipples to penis seems like a bit of a stretch, don't it?

rcoveson 5y ago
Depends on how you're positioned.

mediaman 5y ago

I'm sorry, but linking this to genitalia doesn't make any sense. Society prohibits the exposure of genitalia for both men and women. Although it's certainly up for debate whether that's reasonable or not, the treatment is equal. And at least genitalia perform a sexual function, so if the principle is that we shouldn't show organs with a primarily sexual function, for whatever reason, at least there's some sort of principle at work. The issue of the nipple is completely separate and indefensible. The nipple has very similar appearance for both sexes; it performs no sexual function, and the one function it does have for women is something that has no obvious moral basis to prohibit. To wit: adults eating in public is fine, children eating in public is fine, but, for some reason, a baby eating in its natural form in public is not fine. I agree with OP. It's nuts and we will likely see this view relaxed over time, though I have no idea how long of a time horizon.

ravenstine 5y ago
What you are saying demonstrates exactly why I posed the questions. 1. It's usually stated as a matter of fact that primary sex organs possess inherent qualities that make them reasonably objectionable in a way that is not attributable to secondary sex characteristics, but few are actually articulating why that is, which is important for an argument differentiating the two. 2. Genitalia are considered acceptable in an artistic form, as is likely seen in the art this museum posts on social media. This appears rather contrary to the idea that genitalia should be hidden, thus art may not be a good argument for allowing exposed female secondary sex characteristics (as art is treated as a special case). Now people seem to be getting me wrong... I'm NOT in favor of criminalizing the female nipple in any way. > The issue of the nipple is completely separate and indefensible. The nipple has very similar appearance for both sexes; it performs no sexual function, and the one function it does have for women is something that has no obvious moral basis to prohibit. To wit: adults eating in public is fine, children eating in public is fine, but, for some reason, a baby eating in its natural form in public is not fine. No, they are not completely separate. They are all based on a root assumption that is not being adequately challenged. The assumption is that, to take your argument, there is something inherently acceptable about eating, because everyone eats and has mouths, and that there is something inherently objectionable about characteristics primarily related to sex even when the act of intercourse is not taking place. Unless that question is broached, then your point about eating could also be applied to sexual organs. The only difference being that sexual organs have different appearances between males and females, but placing value on whether they differentiate in appearance is also arbitrary.

humpday69 5y ago

In the article's context of classical art yes many famous paintings and sculptures show penises.

ravenstine 5y ago
I was responding in particular to the commenter's point about the acceptability of nudity beyond the context of art.

standardUser 5y ago

I think this is a "one step at a time" situation. Nipples are obvious. No cogent argument can be made in favor of banning only female chests. Genitalia are different because they can be sexualized. I'd argue that a flaccid penis is not a sexualized thing and should not be censored. But what about an erect penis? And what precisely constitutes an erection? Point being, there's a lot of gray area and genuinely tough questions that will need to be answered when it comes to genitalia. But the nipple issue is about as black and white as any issue can get.

ravenstine 5y ago
I really appreciate your non-judgmental response. :) > No cogent argument can be made in favor of banning only female chests. I'm unsure if that's really true. As I've already mentioned elsewhere here, these arguments are all based on assumptions that are being made as a matter of fact. For instance: > Genitalia are different because they can be sexualized. Is that necessarily true? Breasts are frequently sexualized, which makes me question whether that sexualization is entirely cultural or not. On the other hand, male chests are rarely sexualized in nearly the same way outside of relatively minority communities. Yet they can be as well. I wonder these things because the further down the chain of logic, the more it just seems arbitrary, in which case why are we rationalizing and intellectualizing this issue in order to explain it away? In such a case, it really isn't possible to make a cogent argument in favor of allowing exposed female breasts, because it would come down to what society is irrationally comfortable or uncomfortable with.

malermeister 5y ago

Yes. All of it should be okay. Relax, it's just human bodies. What's so terrible about it? We see all sorts of animals naked all the time, what's so special about homo sapiens? Should we make dogs and cats wear clothes too? Nudism is a relatively big thing in German culture [1], there's a park in munich for example that's clothing-optional. The world hasn't ended yet and Germany seems to be doing just fine, so why get all worked up about it? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freik%C3%B6rperkultur

ravenstine 5y ago
> What's so terrible about it? To be clear, I never said there was anything terrible about it. [edited to be less standoffish]
- malermeister 5y ago
  That wasn't directed at you in specific, but more at certain segments of society in general.
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    Oh, gotcha.
dashundchen 5y ago
Plenty of FKK swimming in the eastern states as well. A day at the beach is a lot better when you can hop in and out of the water without worrying about a wet swimsuit, and warm your whole body in the sun.