BiscuitTrouser said:
FieryTrainwreck said:
I think pretending that women's breasts and men's breasts are the same thing is beyond idiotic. I guess this is just where I get off the PC train.
Lets drop the women in games thing, mostly because my post got enormous when i typed it and secondly because its WAY off topic.
I agree they are different in terms of how they look on average. Yes.
But that doesnt really matter in terms of rights. See i find womens forearms pretty attractive. Most guys dont. Like the breasts the forearms are not a sexual organ. You do not use them for sex. People LIKE breasts yes, much like i like forearms. But just because i like something on a woman that doesnt mean she should cover it up. Thats silly. Even if EVERYONE liked womens forearms thats our problem not theirs. I can get over having something attractive being shown to me, it wont cause me to freak out and it doesnt hurt anyone. Im an adult. I can control myself. And just because i enjoy forearms i cant get mad when women have them out.
Im fine having sex organs illegal to show in public. But boobs arnt a sex organ. It seems weird to want to stop women showing their chests because they are lumpy and we find them hot. Women find our chests hot too and they dont complain we can be topless, so lets offer them the same. Sure the average physical difference is there but why does it matter really?
I'm going to reply to this line of reasoning with a link to a post that I can't find and, subsequently, do not have... uh, yeah.
Anyways, the post I'm referring to was about context. Context is everything, everywhere. You can rigidly deploy strictly rational arguments until you're blue in the face, but a society of self-governing people is allowed to determine for itself what is and isn't acceptable. We're intelligent sentient beings capable of deciding for ourselves where we draw lines. Otherwise it's all a never-ending "slippery slope" argument flying towards oblivion.
A big part of this decision process involves specific deference. For example: in America, we need to be more sensitive to racial issues, especially those pertaining to people of African and Native American descent, because we've a particularly dicey history with those ethnic groups. If someone wants to name a third tier soccer club in Germany the "Fighting Sioux", very few people are going to care. That same action in South Dakota is blatantly insensitive and offensive. What's the difference? Context.
In the context of our current social norms, female breasts are very clearly associated with sexuality. Low cut dresses, cleavage, breast implants - all designed to bring about decidedly sexual reactions in men and/or women. Men's chests are not the same, and comparing female breasts to female forearms (because you've a fixation on that portion of a woman's body) is frankly ludicrous. You're rigidly applying an argument with enough disregard for context as to completely invalidate the form of your argument. It's "theory versus application" failure (aka 90% of the internet).
There's very little difference, functionally/rationally, between two people kissing on a park bench and two people fucking on a park bench. We allow one and not the other because we've made a decision, as a group, to draw a completely arbitrary line in the sand. That's almost all human beings do, really.
"Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere." - G.K. Chesterton
But it's all good!
