To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23188
23187  |  23189
Subject: 
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:31:06 GMT
Viewed: 
366 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

  
   Subjective. How exactly do you link breasts and decency?

In our society, breasts are considered sexual parts (because they are). We tend to be more modest about displaying our sexual parts.

Well, they’re sexual parts because we’ve fetishized them to be sexual parts, much like tiny (bound) feet used to be in China. Beyond that, breasts are no more “sexual parts” than the rest of our bodies (and less so than certain other body parts, to be sure.)

  
   We’re mammals after all, so pretending breasts aren’t there is kind of bliss, isn’t it?

Don’t follow you there.

I think it means “mammals = have mammaries.” Ignoring (i.e., having ignorance of) that essential aspect of mammalianism would be “bliss.”

  
   What is it with breasts and children? Don’t breasts exist *primarily* for them?

No. Ask any women who got hers “augmented”.

That’s a reasonable observation, actually, but a little imprecise. There’s no reason that they can’t be both utilitarian glands *and* sexual symbols, but it should be recalled that the primary function (i.e., of principal importance) of breasts is to provide nourishment for mammalian young, rather than to inspire titilation (which is, again, a result of cultural fetishism).

  
   Why would a child be shocked to watch a breast on tv if he’s probably already been fed thru one? IMO it’s hypocrytical to ake breasts a “taboo” for children, and then making those the center of teenager boys’ dreams. Come on! Do you honestly think a child gets shocked from watching breasts, or is it from the parents’ overreaction to it?

You are denying the innate sexual response men have to viewing women’s breasts. They aren’t the center of teenager boys’ dreams for nothing.

Again, though--they’re the center of such dreams because they are declared taboo in our culture, a la “prohibition creates desire.”

  
   My experience from numerous summers tells me kids tend to accept topless women far easier than their parents... who go on and on about how vile “those women” are, but keep peeping.

Because thankfully they haven’t been sexualized by the society yet, or have arrived there on their own in puberty.

The notion that pre-pubescent children are asexual is a myth.

   Publically funded television-- what a waste of money....

Much better to dump vastly more taxpayer money straight into Halliburton’s finances, I suppose?

Dave!



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
 
(...) Indeed! The last thing the "ruling class" wants is for the "masses" to be kept informed by a good independent public sector broadcaster. Far better that they get their "infotainment" from Fox! Scott A (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
 
(...) Hmmm. I'm thinking of clay Ashtarte fetishes that are 1,000s of years old which are basically a human form with gigantic breasts. Breasts have always been a symbol for sexuality and fertility that is cross-cultural, which leads me to conclude (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) We're just touching on every topic now, aren't we? Publically funded television is a wonderful thing. Never *ever* get rid of it. My local PBS station (local even though it's in a differnt (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
 
(...) Laws need to be based on something (...) Of what value is freedom if nobody respects it? We don't have "absolute freedom" in this country (which is anarchy). If people aren't willing to respect others freedoms, the concept is moot. (...) In (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

88 Messages in This Thread:































Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR