http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22790114-13762,00.html
/signed
I wholly endorse this movement
37 public posts in this discussion.
Post 2
OMG!
*moves to sweden*
Post 3
agh stupid women. As if breasts are ever going to be desexulised. Let them go topless just not in the vicinity of children...
Post 4
what exactly is seeing bouncing breasts going to do to the children? most of them spent the first year of their life sucking on them every day. the only reason it's an 'abhorrent' idea, is because we say it is - perhaps if a bunch of kids grew up seeing naked breasts every day, there'd be a whole lot less nannying going on when they grow up and have their turn in power?
Post 5
Ok then why are you so interested in Naked Breasts if your main argument is that they are only sexual because we say they are. Surely then you should have the same amount of excitement about a female going topless then a man...
or is it that you already do? Is this what you really want? To stop getting enjoyment out of breasts.
And most children are weaned before they have any understanding of breasts..or can even talk. I find it disturbing when I hear of 4 year olds still suckling.
Post 6
i want you to make a point that makes sense. how is a topless female damaging to a child? at what age does it become damaging for a child to see an exposed breast, and at what age does it stop being inappropriate to see an exposed breast?
Post 7
Well answer my question why do you support this movement?
A/ Because breasts aren't sexual and therefore women should have the same rights as men
or
B/ Because you get to see naked breasts therefore agreeing with me that they are sexual. And since showing pornography to children is illegal...
I think breasts are sexual in fact I love the way breasts are sexual. I can't pinpoint an exact age where I think breast feeding/seeing breasts is ok but I do believe the child is to old at 4 years and it grosses me out to think of it. I think around 1-2 years.
I have no problems with naked breasts I just don't think it should be in public view. Controlled beachs, pools etc fine.
Yet if you don't think breasts are sexual then good on you I understand your opinion even if I think your missing out on one of the best parts of a female :D
Post 8
i didn't ask at what age breast feeding becomes 'wrong'. i asked at what age it becomes damaging to a child to see an exposed breast. i don't care if you're grossed out by a four year old sucking at his mothers teet - what has that got to do with little tommy seeing ms. ingas jubblies bouncing up and down while she jogs down the street? how is that gross? how is that going irrevocably turn little tommy into a raving psychopath?
i support the movement for numerous reasons. yes, it would be great to look at, and also because hey, isn't that what equal rights is all about? if its good for one gender, than it should be good for the other.
as for equating it to showing pornography to children, there's two things wrong with that. firstly, it's a false dichotomy, and secondly, because there's a HUGE ****ING DIFFERENCE between a topless woman on the street, and stephanie swift getting her fun bags covered in jizz. additionally, showing pornopgrahy to a child shouldn't really be legislated against, it should be a goddamn parenting decision. personally i think it's far more psychologically damaging to a child to have parents that refuse to acknowledge that sex exists, than it is to have parents that let kids explore.
on top of that, if you make the argument that breasts are sexual and therefore shouldn't be exposed to children, consider this: if a child finds them attractive or whatever, it's too late, they've already seen them on the internet, or via a friend. better to have them swinging free in public, demystifying them and forcing parents to be up front with the kid. if a child doesn't find them sexually appealing, then clearly they're just another body part to them, no different than an arm or leg.
now, thanks for turning a light hearted thread into a ****ing stupid argument about 'OMG WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN'. ugh. guess what. as a kid the best way to learn NOT to do something is to try it and figure out why it's a bad idea. kids learn by doing, not by being told. all this protect the children shit annoys the living hell out of me. grr.
Post 9
Quote from paladin;330097:
snip
grr.
He is actually making this noise, don't get between a man and his boobies :P
Post 10
did i tell you i am definetely going to sweden :-)
Post 11
pfft - Amanda you lost before you started typing, TITS OUT EVERYBODY! =)
.. except dragon's crackwh0re.. that WOULD be damaging to children.
Post 12
Im with Paladin on this one. A lot of stuff is only "damaging" because we say it is. If we stopped saying it was damaging it would stop being "damaging". There is now actual damage done only the perceived notion of damage because we say it is.
Kind like teaching something that has the sole purpose of being taught to someone else. As soon as you stop teaching it, it stops having any purpose at all. Same principle.
Post 13
zzzzzzzzzzz you turned it into an argument because you didn't like my opinion...
/going to sleep now
who would have thought you could get so mad over someone not agreeing with you haha
Post 14
Actually I think they've got it all wrong. Need to make sure everyone wears tops at all times.
why you say?
Soloman with no shirt. It's legal.
Definitely damaging to children, and adults, and animals, and the environment.
Post 15
Quote from SperO;330103:
zzzzzzzzzzz you turned it into an argument because you didn't like my opinion...
/going to sleep now
who would have thought you could get so mad over someone not agreeing with you haha
well if you want to play the 'you started it' game, you definitely started it by turning it into an 'OH NOES! THE CHILDREN!' issue.
Post 16
Quote from Harbinger;330105:
Actually I think they've got it all wrong. Need to make sure everyone wears tops at all times.
why you say?
Soloman with no shirt. It's legal.
Definitely damaging to children, and adults, and animals, and the environment.
probably also the reason no alien civilisations have tried to contact us yet.
Post 17
Pure gold harb. pure gold.
Post 18
Hey why did i get dragged into this..
*stands out front of harbs place with no shirt on*
Post 19
While I wholeheartedly agree with the stated 'movement' I am deeply saddened by the lack of the word lesbian in this article. :eek:
Post 20
ooo when is Just Lesbian Sex going to be setup?
edit: scratch that, best make it Just Male Fantasy Lesbian Sex
Post 21
Quote from Aegis;330117:
edit: scratch that, best make it Just Male Fantasy Lesbian Sex
agreed, because real lesbian sex is probably a horrible traumatic thing to witness.
fake paid lesbians on the other hand...
Post 22
...
Post 23
If you raised the next generation, in a topless environment, it will be normal to them. A regular part of life.
It'd be sexual to the pre-existing population because we were raised with it not being the norm.
That said.
More boobies.
Post 24
Sounds like a painful case of sunburn waiting to happen ;)
Post 25
thats okay, open up a whole new business of kerbside vitamin-e and aloe vera vendors. complete with application service.
Post 26
Seriously, as Milenko said, breasts are only sexual because they are covered up and made "taboo" so to speak. If you covered ears the same way or reacted the same about elbows, everyone would be yelling "Show us ya ears!!!" etc.
Post 27
boobies ftw
Post 28
Quote from Wrathlon;330138:
Seriously, as Milenko said, breasts are only sexual because they are covered up and made "taboo" so to speak. If you covered ears the same way or reacted the same about elbows, everyone would be yelling "Show us ya ears!!!" etc.
Would that mean we would get ear enlargements?
Post 29
Just think back when anything above the ankle was risque.
Post 30
i couldnt care less about anything other than seeing more breasts.
Post 31
Quote from HeReTiC;330195:
i couldnt care less about anything other than seeing more breasts.
This thread has been very informative. I like to keep a breast of things! :D
Post 32
Quote from HeReTiC;330195:
i couldnt care less about anything other than seeing more breasts.
Be careful what you wish for, some tribal societies have no qualms about being topless, or scarring the retina's of unsuspecting westerners.
Post 33
I think full nudity should be desexualised too.
Actually I don't.
I like skimpy outfits more then full nudity anyway... Or should I say potentially revealing outfits (short skirts, etc.)
Post 34
Quote from Frenzy;330249:
Be careful what you wish for, some tribal societies have no qualms about being topless, or scarring the retina's of unsuspecting westerners.
Luckily, i dont live in downtown Guatamala.
Post 35
bras are not our enemy, we must support the bras. Just as they support our interests.
Post 36
You bring a good counter-point to the argument Harbinger. i support this claim.
Women should walk around in bras. ahhh yes, bras.
Post 37
ditto to harb and hito................., both very true and as long as they stay a taboo, its one more attractive marvels of the opposite sex and gives me another reason to settle a fued, if it is gone its one less reason to give a shit.