>>67752
I'm stating it.

>>67742
And a man could cut off his d and still have a kid. Hell, you can pay someone to gestate your baby for you, you don't even need your own womb these days. With artificial assistance, this stuff can be bypassed. That doesn't mean that it is not part of the process.


Some women have big boobs, some has small boobs. Most boobs are just fine either way, I think. I don't think I know anyone that hates brestasis.

>>67798
No one has needed one of those fancy new-age bypasses for breasts to have a baby, though. They are ancillary at best to the reproductive process, only needed for feeding the baby afterward, which can and is often replaced by other methods. Have tits, don't have tits, won't affect the pregnancy one little lick.

Missing cocks isn't very common but I imagine it's still somewhat difficult to extract sperm. Think about it this way, though: it's the year 1000. Tits still don't have any bearing on the pregnancy. It's simply not a reproductive organ.

>>67815
I don't understand what year 1000 has to do with anything, especially without giving a more specific geographic location. What ate you trying to say, lughead?

>>67817
It can be 10,000 BC, it's about biology, not anything else. You can breed without any kind of interruption or problem without tits. You can't really do the same without balls or even a d.

Trying to say "baaaww but I can't walk around with half my cock out" is dumb. I don't know why it's difficult.

Some women are self-hating and tie their entire self-worth to how men see them, so they tailor their entire lives around that and sometimes it means they leave parts of their bodies exposed because it grabs their attention. Many if not more men do the same thing though, tie their entire self-worth to how women see them and whether they can get a girlfriend, and no big surprise the two groups find each other and have miserable lives with each other because they're attention addicts and can't live with one person. Probably, I dunno.

>>67818

It's also worth mentioning that despite cocks, breasts, and vaginas being sexual organs, humans didn't have problems with them hanging about for most of our history. People didn't go, "Shit, there's a naked woman! Better go rape her!" when every woman walked around naked or near-naked. They just got used to it. Likewise, if we relax social norms on modesty, people will just learn to get used to it without being creepy as shit. I think the argument is especially dumb because most clothes are designed to be slimming and attractive first, and for utility second.

>>67819
Can you provide historical sources for anything you claimed here? You're making some bold statements, so if valid, it shouldn't b difficult to support.

>it's about biology, not anything else
That was my point. If you are not breastfeeding, then you are feeding the baby artificially. If that is fine, then it's fine to get the babyjuice artificially. I'd even say it's fine to grow the baby in a test tube at that point. But basically: just because it can be removed from the process does not mean it is not part of the process.

>>67831
Depends on what you define as the "process", and where it ends. The process of reproduction, in my mind, starts at sex and ends at birth. From there, nothing in the process is really necessary. You can bottlefeed the baby coca-cola because the mom died, either due to complications during childbirth or because she got shot during a hospital robbery. The process of reproduction has not been interrupted even with the mother dying, the baby is alive and healthy. Conversely, if you throw the baby in a trash compactor, you've still successfully reproduced.

Sex isn't really the most efficient way to deliver dude goo. We shouldn't have sex at all, because it's inefficient.

>>67835
Lizards, birds, fish, etc. None of them have tits because it's not part of their reproduction. We are mammals specifically because of how we birth and nurse bebbies. Tits are in the name we use to classify ourselves, and that classification is based in large part on how we reproduce. Just because you don't want to wear a shirt in public doesn't mean that tits are not reproductive in nature. Reproduction is the whole reason they exist.

>Conversely, if you throw the baby in a trash compactor, you've still successfully reproduced.
So if you make a baby in another person or in a test tube, you've succeeded and your whole reproductive system doesn't matter. Either everything involved in making a person is part of it, or none of it is. You don't get to pick and choose to make your point.

>>67838
You're a woman. Always all or nothing with you fish sticks. Disgusting breeder botch tits d highway.

>>67838
You can't really make a baby in a test tube. You can do a part of the process outside of a body, but we don't yet have the ability to grow one entirely outside the body.

It's just a semantics fight at this point, though. The original point was that breasts simply aren't on the same level as cock/balls, and I see no particular reason why they are or should be tied to sexuality. Just seemed like something someone decided when Christianity got big and no we all do it.

> I see no particular reason why they are or should be tied to sexuality
I gave you plenty. You don't see it because you don't want to. And yes, your argument is based on your opinion, but mine is based on provable biology, scientific categorization and the fact that you are just singling tits out because it fits your purpose.
Testubabies: Even if the test tube is another person, the point still stands.

>The original point was that breasts simply aren't on the same level as cock/balls
No it wasn't, goalpost mover. You said "breasts have nothing to do with the process of reproduction" and you are provably wrong. And since they are reproductive organs without which humanity would not have survived, they are sexualized. Some of the earliest statues we have ever uncovered show the ideal female reproductive body: large breasts, hips and waists. They have been known as reproductive organs ever since we were "cavemen".
You given nothing to support you other than empty assertion. If you can't get past what you want in order to see things how they are, then you'll never grow up. But oh well. Just one more of you people trying to bluster until you get your way.

>something someone decided when Christianity got big
I can feel your angstiness from here. Next step is for you to say something about how great communism is. You're welcome.

Women think men simply existing is rape, fuck women.

Hey, fags, tits have been sexualized for as long as there have been tits. Look at the graffiti of basically any civilization in history, you bunch of pillow-biting nancies.

>>67848
I don't deny that breasts and the production of milk play an ancillary part in reproduction. I've already admitted as such. My characterization of "having nothing to do with reproduction" may not be entirely correct. The breasts filling up with milk is essentially the same as having protective instincts or other changes in the body and mood. Breasts are still not necessary for human reproduction, just as maternal or protective instincts are not necessary for reproduction. They are ancillary to the process and evolutionary traits.

The whole debate has happened because one person suggested that a d and breasts should be treated the same by societal standards. I counter by saying that since a cock is an integral part of the reproductive process and breasts are not, that they should not be treated the same. Nipples and breasts can be accessory to sexual arousal, but the same can also be said for men.

Furthermore, an argument could be made that protecting genitals, particularly male genitals but also female genitals, is much more important than protecting chests. Of course, covering the chest can take priority in certain situations, like when cooking, which women have traditionally done a lot of.

Breasts are often asked to be covered because men are often attracted by them, though it's hard to say whether or not that would be the case of if uncovering them was common. In any case, because the world has been traditionally male-centric, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that men want them covered because it turns them on, and they'd rather not be aroused in front of someone they want to have a business conversation with. That would be the most understandable perspective. However, saying this offends some men because it implies a lack of control and sexual maturity, when it really just states the obvious. Breasts are sexualized because men are attracted to them. Go fucking figure.

>>67855
There are primitive societies where uncovered breasts are the norm and are still seen sexually. There is also the hypothesis that humans, due to our bipedal nature, developed breasts to be sexualized like asses, because we can mate face-to-face. Face it, cockface, boobs play a role in reproduction. Suck it.

>>67857
An ancillary role, yes.

>>67857
You can make babies without tits, you can't without balls. That's it. I don't get what is so hard to understand about that statement or even what you two are arguing about.

>>67878
It was a shitty attempt to hijack this thread and try and make it a pedo thread. You know what you're doing, guy. Stop.

>>67848 cont.
Just let it go. We all know you're wrong, we're just seeing if you will recognize it at this point. You don't seem like you want to acknowledge that you might be wrong (brushing off your directly contradictory statements like they're nothing), so there's no point continuing.

There really isn't much to this cleavage thing, anyway. Women often like to feel wanted, and showing a bit of tit makes men want them a bit.

So am I alone it thinking those famous chicks should have either not put naked photos online or just not taken them if they are so upset when someone else takes them? I'm not saying they deserved it, just that hey helped make it happen and so are partly responsible. It doesn't reduce the thief's culpability either. The ethics of this would be more interesting than a bag lady telling me wrong things. Or we could go with thermodynamics, as was suggested.

>>67880
I have already admitted that I was wrong at that point. You seem obsessed with that point, like your day hinges on me unconditionally admitting that I was wrong. I might make a jab about how that is sort of immature, but I'll give you it if it means that much to you.

Not that either of us really disagreed about the role of tits. I was always fully aware that breasts fill with milk after pregnancy to feed the baby. I just always saw reproduction as something more narrowly defined, but am willing to admit that they do play an ancillary role, the same as other evolutionary traits.

>>67881
I don't think anyone denies the reality you provide, pedo guy. It's just that it's an outdated reality, that while important to study for historical purposes, shouldn't be the way we run society today. Yeah, at one time girls were taken as domestic sex slaves and forced to have a litter of children before they were 20, so their tits were deflated and relatively unattractive. We all know you yearn for these days because it means you might have actually been able to act on your *philic urges to your heart's content, because that's how domestic slavery works.

The problem is we don't live in that world anymore. It's like trying to claim that we should be able to do human sacrifices and cannibalize each other, because it's natural and they did it once a long time ago.

>>67724
No, I just don't fancy the way she looks. That's all. I'm sure I could come up with a reason for it but it'd just be stuff I pulled out of my ass to justify a gut feeling. Are you going to start telling me that my opinion is wrong and that a cishet shitlord like me doesn't get to judge on what is and isn't attractive, or what?

NOKO has been used.

>>67885
There are many boobies that are fine after teenhood. Your point, if you even had one, is impossible to locate because it's hidden in a roundabout argument that goes nowhere specific. You're just a pedophile, you're not normal and society doesn't accept you. Get the fuck over it.

>>67860
They're ancillary NOW because we can feed the baby formula or milk from another animal, but this wasn't the case for most of our evolution. They weren't ancillary; they were essential to the process, perhaps not of reproduction per se, but spawning is pointless if the babies all starve to death. going with the earlier example of 10000BC, if you had a baby and couldn't nurse it, the baby died unless there was another nursing female in the group who had enough milk to spare. That's why so many men find large breasts appealing: it's a holdover from the days before bottles and whatnot when the mother had to feed the baby from her mammaries until it could eat "normal" food. Big tits mean lots of milk, which meant healthy happy babies, making them a desireable feature in a prospective mate. Moreover, the breasts are major erogenous zones, so much so that it's possible to climax from nipple stimulation alone, and not just for women(I know; I've done it, and I've seen others do it). Actual reproduction aside, breasts are as much sexual organs as the clitoris or g-spot, neither of which is the least bit necessary for conception, but we still consider them sexual organs. The real question here should be "why must a body part be hidden simply because it's sexual?" That's the real puritanical holdover, if you want to talk about medieval repression.

>>67893
The debate was never about whether or not they were "sexual", that's moving the goal-posts. Nice and healthy skin can be considered sexy and desirable in a mate for a variety of reasons. The issue was whether or not they are actively reproductive organs. You can actually feed babies something other than human milk that people had access to even in prehistoric times, whether it's water or juice or cow's milk but breastmilk is helpful to the infant's development. That plays a role, sure, but it's not of the same importance as uteri or cocks in the process of reproduction.

Think of it like a painter. A painter NEEDs a few vital thinks in order to paint. Paint, a surface to paint on, and something to paint with. As such, anything that is part of those groups can be considered vital. But there are many things painters might also employ which could help in the painting process. And easel to hold the canvas up, a smock to keep your clothes from getting too stained, along with any number of other things which could help out with the painting. These things are considered ancillary, which does not mean unimportant, just not entirely vital to whatever it is that you're doing.

As such, a reproductive organ would be something that actively plays a role in reproduction, there are other things, like breasts, which have ancillary roles.

>>67893
Thank you so much. I was struggling to put that thought into words, and I don't understand why other people don't get it. Tits are covered because they are sexual. And I guess to answer the "Why are sexual parts covered" might be as simple as it is indecent to have such things on full display? Maybe thinking like the East Indians do though to a lesser degree, such things are meant for their partners only and thus should be covered in public.

>>67900

> And I guess to answer the "Why are sexual parts covered" might be as simple as it is indecent to have such things on full display?

Why is it indecent?

>>67655
>>67667
Easy there cunt, you're not *actually* a person.

>>67906
This isn't Twitter, kiddo. You're not going to get some militant reaction from internet personalities for saying cunt.

>>67880 cont.
>>67905
It's putting strangers into an intimate situation whether they want it or not. It is comparable to people grunting and groaning from heavy petting in a restaurant. Just because you're ok with it doesn't mean that everyone else is. The expression "get a room" says "Take your private shit to a private place because we don't want to see it".

Cleavage is as accepted as it is (probably) because it is all skin until you get to the nipple which is an easily identifiable demarcation between normal and sexytime. Some skin is ok to show (probably) because unless you're wearing a full-body cover, you will show some skin no matter what.

>>67895
You just try raising a baby on juice and water. See how that goes.
Also, to answer your question: "They're ancillary NOW"
>>67884
>I just always saw reproduction as something more narrowly defined
That is your problem. You're not going by any scientific, biological or agreed-upon definition. You're just seeing it how you want to. That way you can make it whatever you want to get what you want. Ergo, vis-a-vis, quid pro quo, you are wrong. It's ok, just learn and move on. Sometimes being wrong is the best way to learn.

>>67917
I moved on half-way through this thread. You're the one who keeps bringing it up for no reason.

Also, it's perfectly possible to raise a baby without human breast milk, whether it's 100,000 BC, present, or any point in between. You just don't want to admit that for the same reasons you state, because all of your self-esteem is tied to whether or not you can be right on the internet. They are ancillary now, they have always been ancillary to the process of reproduction. Helpful, but not necessary.

>>67921
clearly you've never raised a baby. sure, an infant can eat other things besides milk, but it won't be healthy, and there's a decent chance it wont' survive, because its digestive system isn't yet ready to handle real food. That's why formula is designed to emulate milk. We're not born with the necessary enzymes. Feed a newborn fruit juice without at least a few meals of milk or milk analogue first and it's going to suffer hideous diarrhea.

>>67924
All that may be true, but the point still stands. Reproduction has nothing to do with whether a baby will live a long, healthy life. There is an incredible number of things that factor into that. Parents have protective instincts which help prolong a life, but many species have no such thing and they are able to reproduce and proliferate successfully. Breasts are ancillary to the process of reproduction. Helpful, but not necessary. I'll keep repeating it if you like.

>>67931

fine, and this has what, exactly, to do with the fact that it's silly, prudish, and arguably mentally unhealthy to be upset by something as natural as nudity? I'm guessing you'll cite societal norms, but that's not really a solid basis for any kind of argument since zeitgeists are in constant flux.

>>67962
I've always been on the "pro-cleavage" side of the debate. I don't really give a shit about what people choose to wear. The long-winded debate about whether or not tits are reproductive organs was rather silly from the start.

>>67965

I get that you're pro-cleavage, but that seems to be as far as it goes and I'm curious as to why. Just to be clear, the sorta artsy shot with the biology lecture attached was my first post in this thread. No need to be so aggressive. I just want to chat politics, not convert you. If you'd prefer, we can make a separate thread to discuss the various branches of nudism.

>>68019
I don't mind cleavage because it's an important aspect of a society that values to diversity of free expression. If 10 different women in the same room are all going in different directions with their fashions, then that's a great thing. Some women might choose to dress slutty, or there might be one of those cute pink hijab girls there. It's all ballza.

Whether casual nudity will make men more horny or not is somewhat irrelevant, because the world shouldn't revolve around men's feelings. Women should be able to do what makes them comfortable with no shame, same with men.

From >>67917 I don't care if a woman shows cleavage or not. Some women just want attention. Whatever.
>>68028
>it's an important aspect of a society that values to[sic] diversity of free expression
It really isn't. I would agree that it might be a form of expression, but by no means is it important. The press is important, assemblage is important, showing off your tits is not. Atututut . . . no, it's not.

>the world shouldn't revolve around men's feelings
It doesn't. It should also not revolve around yours. Many women are uncomfortable with nudity as well. Like I said: "It's putting strangers into an intimate situation whether they want it or not". They might feel like you're pressuring them to get naked when they don't want to. Just because you like to go naked doesn't mean everyone else likes when you go naked.
>>Women should be able to do what makes them comfortable with no shame, same with men
Ah, so men should then also be able to say "Hey, I'd like to fuck you." without getting a gaggle of shrieking harpies after him? Because that's what you're saying. Neither example harms anyone, and the only difference is that one is verbal, the other is visual. "But that makes women uncomfortable" And nudity never does, right?

Look: There's nothing wrong with nudity, but just as with violence, gore, movie-scares, actual sex, etc. it should be used in proper context. That's how society works. And since we do still use clothes all around the world for practical purposes as much as expressive, I think it's fine that we also use clothes for personal modesty. When we all live on climate-controlled space stations, then I don't care. Until then, just keep your clothes on. You can still get your attention, just use deep cleavage or something.

>>68082
>It really isn't. I would agree that it might be a form of expression, but by no means is it important.

That may be your opinion, I wasn't really talking about rights that should be protected by the government, but I think diversity of dress, like diversity of hairstyle and other aspects are important parts of personal expression. Without that freedom, everyone is forced to conform into a Middle Eastern or Japanese style mold. I once knew a Japanese girl whose hair was slightly lighter/more brunette than normal- still mostly black, but enough to stand out in a crowd. She was told by her teacher that she had to dye it black like everyone else, otherwise she might stand out as a show-off or even a slut. For having brown-tinted hair.

I don't like to employ the slippery slope too often (like extreme conservatives who employ it in literally every situation), but it doesn't seem like it would take much to follow the logic from "women shouldn't show cleavage in public" to higher and higher arbitrary standards. Why is that chick wearing red? Those are total fuck me attention whore clothes, she's such a bitch, etc etc.

> Like I said: "It's putting strangers into an intimate situation whether they want it or not". They might feel like you're pressuring them to get naked when they don't want to. Just because you like to go naked doesn't mean everyone else likes when you go naked.

Why is it entirely about what THEY have to do to accommodate you? This is what I'm talking about. Liberty is a two-way street, if people are free to wear what they want, you are perfectly free to not associate with them. In situations where people typically do have to associate with one another, like workplaces, schools, public establishments like restaurants, those places should be able to establish dress codes, just as they can establish rules for behavior.

>Ah, so men should then also be able to say "Hey, I'd like to fuck you." without getting a gaggle of shrieking harpies after him?

How is that even relevant? First of all, it's perfectly legal to say that, it only becomes harassment if you say it repeatedly after someone has asked you to stop, though if you are at a bar for example they are free to throw you out if you cause a ruckus. Same if you keep yelling "honky APES CHUCK OBAMA SPEARS" during an NAACP convention. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard, nor does it mean you can say anything to anyone in any context. What does this have to do with what people should wear in public? Who knows. All I was saying is that people should be able to wear what makes them feel comfortable, in my ideal world this might include nudity, but the fact is that clothes do exist for a reason and nudity is rather impractical in modern society, and even then few people willingly participate in it. Most people have no problem with clothes, at that point it's just a function of comfort, usefulness, and contextual factors (like dressing professionally at work and formally at weddings).

People have a tendency to read too much into it, that if someone is wearing something in a certain way they're trying to express or even invite things. It's just a clothes, any meaning you attach to an article of clothing is ultimately arbitrary.

Personally, I love the diversity of humans, it's what makes shit so interesting, and any effort or attempt to enforce conformity or sameness to some arbitrary ideal that seems to change rather frequently I tend to oppose.

>>68082 cont.

>I don't mind cleavage because it's an important aspect of a society that values to diversity of free expression.
>People have a tendency to read too much into it, that if someone is wearing something in a certain way they're trying to express or even invite things.
F- See me after class. :|

>That may be your opinion, "I don't want to slippery slope, but . . ."
I bet some of your best friends are black, too? I am saying that we currently have a perfectly fine line between acceptable and not. I'm saying that you personally need to deal with having to live in a society instead of saying "Why do I have to do things that take others into account? "
But that's not ballza enough for you because no one tells you what to do, man. Geez, mom, yur like, soooo unreasonable.

>Why is it entirely about what THEY have to do to accommodate you?
Because there are billions of them and one of you, and the comfort of the many outweighs the comfort of the few, or the one. It's about everyone accommodating everyone else. As soon as you step outside, you have to accommodate the world in a million ways just like everyone else. One of them is putting on some pants. That's just how a society works. And since clothes are here to stay for the foreseeable future, I'm fine with requiring clothes in society.

>What does this have to do with what people should wear in public?
By going naked in public, you are doing the same thing as those guys that catcall: forcing sexuality into the public. Sex is pretty much universally a private thing, and most people don't want to be part of someone else's private business.

>>68083 wants to walk around with their cock/tits hanging out and thinks everyone else should deal with it
>>68087 thinks you should wear pants/a shirt and just deal with it

I'm inclined to agree with >>68087 because that solution requires less people "just dealing with it". That's called compromise, ladies.

>>68087
It's about context, what I meant is that personal expression with dress is something someone can do, but some people project their own meaning of expression onto it. Someone might choose a shirt because it goes well with their eyes, hair, a pair of pants or shoes, or something else, and then people say she's intentionally dressing like a slut for attention.

>I am saying that we currently have a perfectly fine line between acceptable and not.

The line is constantly moving, though, and it can be hard to even define. I know how the nonconformity stuff comes off, but I don't see anything wrong with having "lines" or standards, they're inevitable in society. My problem comes when people are assumed to be bad/immoral/wrong for not conforming to the central ideal. Most people might conform to an extent, and look to stand out in some other way. That's ultimately the difference between a country which simply has a standard and one that enforces it, either through government consequences or hardcore societal consequences (everyone thinking you're an attention whore or slut for not having jet black hair).

I have no problem with the former, but a huge problem with the latter on principle. Beyond that, it's certainly not personal for me. I have no personal wish to go out half-naked or naked, I try to dress as comfortable as possible in most situations.

>>68089
It's a conflict between more liberty and more happiness, and it's not a new conflict.

>>68087 cont.

>My problem comes when people are assumed to be bad/immoral/wrong for not conforming to the central ideal
Oh get over it, you rebellious rebel, you. It's not about non-conformance, it's about what the clothing indicates. You can generally look at a person and see what kind of person they are. Neat clothes? Sloppy clothes? Showy? Comfortable? etc.
The bad/immoral/wrong you're talking about is likely sluts given the conversational context. It's not about "non-conformance", but what your look indicates about you. My guess is that sluts are derided because being a slut indicates enough negative behaviors strongly enough (bad impulse control, not likely very smart, low self-esteem, and so on to be mixed and matched) that it is not far-fetched to associate one with the other. If you see a boat, you'll probably be right if you guess it's wet. Not always, no, but snap judgements are one of the cores of human social interaction. If you do not agree, then you have not had enough job interviews.

Same basic idea can be applied to plenty of easily-identified persontypes: stoners, mindless guidos, NEEEEEEEERRRRRDDDSSS!!!! >:o
AND SO *ahem* and so on. Long story short: >>68095 is basically right. And with a reminder of the longview, I'm out.

>>68099
I'm not really arguing any of that. People are free to feel however they want about someone based on what they wear, on principle I have no problem with that. It's a nuanced thing, I don't really feel most people care how someone dresses in their personal lives, so long as they don't come over for dinner. I'm fine with that. When it crosses over into something more... repressive, that's when I have a problem with it.

Jobs and professional lives are a separate issue almost entirely, as people typically transform in a great many ways when they go to work. It's demanded of people because of the nature of the workplace. But even workplace dress and dynamics are changing fairly rapidly as time goes on, because what is considered acceptable dress changes.

Also I am >>68095 . It's generally a choice between just letting people do what they want so long as it doesn't directly impact anyone else or restrict their rights and making the most amount of people feel comfortable, happy, safe, or otherwise placated. In the vast majority of cases I advocate for the liberty side, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is a minority opinion.

>>68103
To paraphrase a New York judge, your right to swing your cock around ends where my right to not have cock in my face begins.

>>68099
The prejudice is strong with this one. You really think you know what kind of person someone is just because they smoke a lot of weed, or have a lot of sex? Even the mindless whatever isn't a reliable indicator of personality, as you don't know what sort of advice they're mindlessly following.

I like boobies.

cont.

>>68191
>You really think you know what kind of person someone is just because
I never said know, I said "what the clothing indicates". I said "you can GENERALLY know". "it is not far-fetched to associate one with the other"
I'm talking correlation, probability and so on. I think you're the only one that didn't get this. So kiddo back to your kiddo, kiddo, and kiddo.