3 ms·
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 diff
by 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 agoI 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.