Are female nipples honestly that "bad" to be shown?

Post Reply New Topic

I never noticed that on female cats. but if they do have them, then it sounds analogous to the red posteriors of monkeys in heat.

One, that is a different hypothesis, but it's an incorrect one: while it's true that the breasts also contains fat stores, what swells upon arousal isn't the fat, it's the actual breast tissue.

Two, if all those body parts consistently swelled up as a response to sexual arousal, you might have a Point, and we'd all look at it differently. As it stands, human breasts have kind of taken over the role played by the butt in other apes, more likely than not because of our upright stature. Same reason why human males have the largest penises of all the apes.

And they have neither mammal-ries...
Nor nipples!

All cats have them, all year long. But they are less evident in intact males.
I brought this up becouse it is intresting to note the differece between the proposed hypotheses;
1. for the function of the primordial pouch
2. for the function of the breasts of female people.

(I'm implying here that sexologists are people and thus suffer from their own fetishes...erm biases)
There is no reliable proof for your hypothesis either ,even if it is the uncontroversial one that evertbody subscribes to .


Important edit;The human butt has never lost the role it plays for the rest of the apes. Humans are perfectly able to look and judge other peoples buttocks, and then they are perfectly able to make correct assumptions about each others fittness (sexual or not). Yes there are actual published papers that I'm refering to but you have to search for them on your own.

Yes, medical science is very faith-based like that. Or y'know, not. The fact that you even refer to it an uncontroversial should tell you everything. What are you even trying to argue for here? Is the suggestion that biology is a thing just offensive to you?



First, you want to present sources, you go get them yourself or don't bring them up. I'm not doing your work for you.

Second, evolution is a slow process and doesn't backpedal. A nice butt is still a nice butt. What I meant was that since we now walk upright, our butts are no longer at a convenient eye level. Breasts are much more close at hand in that regard.

Also, breasts do swell when a woman is aroused, and I'm fairly sure the butt does not. A far cry from the blazing red rear ends of other apes.

I'm not trying to argue.
But I intended to discuss about thelack of a scientific basis to the notion that female nipples distract others attention inherently , therefore cencoring them is a totaly illogical practice.

Biology is anything but offensive to me Wolfram. It's just some pseudo-scientific stuff that mascarade aroud like ''uncontrovercial universal facts'' that drain my will to live



See whats going on here?You didn't provide sources for your claim(=female breast has sexual function) either. That is an opinion with little basis that is thrown around so often as if it was self evident . Have you ever heard of a blind experiment with a control group that provides proof to that claim? I haven't.


Of course it does. Take the evolution of cetaceans as a glaring example.


Its not about the height level. Your eyes are placed in such a way that you can freely observe something regardless of its proximity to your face
Practically human butts are an even more convenient measure since we are upright standing and walking. We may come to conclusions about somebody by the mere shape and form of a butt and an unstressed gait, we don't even need to display blazing red colors anymore.


You don't really want me to do your work for you either.

Female nipples may not distract you...
But you are a female...
Ask any pubescent schoolboy whether or not female nipples and breasts are a source of distraction...
Are we, meaning you guys, really having this discussion?

Make your own experiment...
Line up a bunch of 13 year old boys and expose your boobies at them...
You will have your answer quicksmart there and then...
All you have to do is see who is or isn't giving you the salute...
Simples...

Read my lips:
Yes, they are a distraction...
But who the bloody hell cares...<sigh>

My attitude towards this is the same as my attitude towards wine - which is shared by a lot of folks outside the US, at least. Don't pretend it doesn't exist, let children learn about it as is appropriate to their age, learn to deal with the idea that your children are going to be sexual beings themselves, and a lot of problems can be avoided.

^ I certainly agree. Denying the existence of that would only make it worse... And pointlessly embarrassing.

I like women, but I like men so much more. I am not bi but I do not dislike women as I believe they are so much fun to be around.
I love the way a man is made, he; to me is God's perfection.

Not sure I saw that claim being made. Saw a few that seemed to think people would react with unrelenting disgust at an exposed female nipple. Count me among the unconvinced.




Do feel free to be more specific in that regard.




Do you accept that "attracting a sexual partner" counts as a sexual function? If you do, then I'm already right, and if you dont, I'll be forced to post PornHubs stats for top 10 searches by country and prove me right regardless.




It absolutely doesn't, and the evolution of whales is an excellent example on how it doesn't. If sea creatures over millions of years evolved in such a way as to function as land creatures, that is evolution going forward. If said land creatures over time find themselves in environmental situations where increased fitness for sea dwelling would be beneficial for survival, then that would be selected for, even to the point where a creature is once again fully ocean dwelling. That would still be evolution going forward. Fitness is only ever measured in capacity to survive in a given environment. Using an old solution for a new problem isn't going backwards.

Evolution going backwards would be something like beneficial mutations previously selected for being deleted from the genome so that they can no longer be selected for.





Are you being deliberately daft? Because it kind of seems like you are being deliberately daft. Of course your eyes are placed so as to observe a maximum of things. Food sources. Possible threats to you and your tribe. Possible prey for you to hunt and feed you and yours with. Et cetera, et cetera.

The point about eye level was about convenience in social situations. It's kind of a big thing in humans and other great apes. Walking upright, while beneficial in many ways, makes observing rear ends less convenient. It's harder to tell at a glance (<-important) how sexually attractive and/or receptive a potential partner might be, if the butt is your go-to signifier. Enter: boobs!

Hell, I've even heard women approaching middle-age complain that they feel mildly insulted when men of any post-pubescent age don't do that subtle glancing down towards their cleavage, even if there no chance whatsoever of anything sexual happening between them. Just as a social acknowledgement of their sexuality.



[/quote]

I don't, but do you really want me to source the claim that womens butts don't swell when aroused?

Wow...I didn't know that...
And I thought I was peculiar...



Why deny men the ability to be titillated?
There are so few things in this god awful world to appreciate...

BTW, the basis for considering something indecent is always there if one has a puritanical mindset...
I remember reading how in olden days a glimpse of stocking was considered shocking...
Now anything seems to go...

<sing>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd1w5tn040g

I'm not so sure about that. I wouldn't feel comfortable letting any man or woman sit naked on my couch. I couldn't care less if he or she was topless since nipples aren't particularly dirty but the region below the belt should be covered for sanitary reasons.

when I am freshly clean I am almost surgically clean. in that state I would not add appreciable microbes to any furniture.

People never know when the next wet fart is coming. That's why underpants were invented. Otherwise we'd all be going commando.

If we accept that the breasts are secondary sexual characteristics and inherently arousing, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be covered. There doesn't need to be a law saying people can't be arousing in public.

Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 19 Feb 2018, 1:10 am, edited 1 time in total.