>feminazis blame "society" for making the breasts a sexual organ
>they have shitty arguments
>want to argue but I can't because no anonymity
>fumes in rage on my own
Do you anons think breasts are just a fetish?
>brainwashed by society
seriously look at this picture and tell me you don't find something sexual about it.
I agree with this poster, however, I still believe that women should not be allowed to walk around topless, only because that would probably increase the rate of rape and cause other problems. dumb cunts complain about catcalling enough as it is.
Do a large number of women get off on having their nipples pinched etc? Yes
Is it therefore a sexual organ? Yes
Do a large number of men get off on having their nipple pinched? No
Therefore it is not a sexual organ.
Also there's a failure to understand that men sexualise the physical, viable, tangible where women sexualise the emotional and social aspects of people more.
I'd support feminism if it meant that breasts stop being a private part and girls stop hiding their tits.
Imagine a world were tits are a normal sight, just like bellies or thighs, and there's you, who have fapped for years to tits. It wont stop turning you on, hell it'll turn us on more.
I don't give a fuck about the patriarchy or rape or whatever, if feminism means free titties then I'm a feminist too.
is this you, anon??????????
>breasts aren't sexual
Look at this image and tell me which girl makes your dick hardest.
>breasts really arent sexual, though.
Reproductive organ =/ sexual
Besides, female breast grow through puberty and produce milk for their young. It's intended for them to do it.
>hurry guys can produce milk too
I said INTENDED. Plus , guys are drone to like breast.
>having cunts on your facebook
>giving a shit about what they say
Watching women try to discuss ideas rationally is painful. At least my facebook is only full of fucking baby photos and buzzfeed articles.
Waiting for some 4chan trolls to shitpost how we want freedom of balls because they're not even a fetish or anything sexual, just something as exclusive as tits and we want to walk with hidden penises and balls showing.
Women should look at shit like that and figure out how retarded they sound.
>Secondary sexual characteristics are wrongly sexualized because of the patriarchy!
I hear that too often at my workplace. Arguing is futile. Let the waves of "feminism" drown you.
Mostly, nudity isn't inherently erotic.
But I would also say that breasts to have an influence on sexual attractiveness, across all cultures.
So both yes and no. We could easily live in a society without hypersexualized nudity, but it's not a problem that we do. Societies have a lot of arbitrary rules that we have to follow "just because", I don't see why this instance is especially important.
>It wont stop turning you on, hell it'll turn us on more
Not really. The same thing that happened to women finally get to show off their legs , it would lose less of its value. Just because they'll be free to show them off doesn't mean girls will let guys stare and touch them.
was arguing with a fag tonight about how equality should be. even to not come off as racist as i actually am, i said everyone should be equal and no one given special treatment. he dismissed me, essentially calling me a kid and threw in "people like you" to boot. all because i said safe spaces on college campuses are retarded and people need to embrace differences and not get offended so easily.
>i'll try meming, that's a good trick!
breasts are sexual, cry moar faggot
>we want to free the nip!
>we want to stop increased amount of molestation!
>we want to stop the oppression of calling us men because we have tits as good as a guy that's not physically active! (this one would be a hilarious, ironical swift kick to their logic, by themselves as well)
I think it's wrong that women aren't allowed to show their breasts while men are. Sexualization is something men do, and it's wrong to impose your sexuality on others and restrict their freedom because you can't control yourself. That's literally sandnigger tier.
Cause that's what a lot of breasts look like. A lot of people look like shit and hide that with photoshop, clothes and make up.
Also african genetics.
If men can walk around topless, so should women. But none should. Seeing a man with a huge belly and mantits is not sexual, it's disgusting. A toned body is sexy and catches the eyes of women, just like decent tits catch the eyes of men. Humans aren't enlightened beings capable of only pure acts, we are animals with instincts that managed to impose on eachother arbitrary rules.
The entire purpose of breasts is to show sexual maturity and fertility. Wide hips is in a similar boat but wide hips actually have a purpose for giving birth. Breasts do not, those meat sacks exist entirely to attract a new mate since the female's milk production are not in the breast themselves.
So yes they are the very definition of sexual, socially and biologically.
Femcunts will say "hurr well you generally can't touch anybody " but completely ignores that if a woman sexually assaults a man, it's never taken seriously . Not even to the police
>If men can walk around topless
How often do you see a man walking around completely topless outside of specific events and areas where that's acceptable? Pretty much fucking never because that's not a socially acceptable thing to do even as a guy. It's seen as rednecky at it's best and vulgar and gross at it's worse.
breasts have been sexualized by cultures since before we could write, they are sexual and it has fuck all to do with modern society just deciding out of nowhere one day that tits would be sexualized
contrary to popular belief people do things for a reason and also contrary to popular belief there isnt an omniscient branch of the illuminati that has spent their entire existence trying to slightly inconvenience liberal women for shits and giggles
>robots blame "society" for nogf and their inability to get casual sex
>they have shitty arguments
>they keep arguing because anonymity
>enjoy funposting and cool pictures of frogs
Doesn't mean you can't use a little common sense. Obviously people who have to look good for their profession look better than people who don't share their profession. Or do I have to explain that the average IQ of college professors is a bit above national norms too?
Depends on how you define "sexual assault", really. If you define it as "rape against people who can't be raped (men)" then it's not, and sexually touching tits would not be either. But I don't think that's the right definition. Let's say that it IS sexual harassment. Sexual assault sounds more violent, so a quick touch of breasts may not be either.
The girl may not realize it's sexual harassment, if she doesn't realize the toucher is sexualizing it, but we can't define crimes according to what the victim feels, that would mean ugly people should go to jail for saying hi and things would be very unpredictable. (But I DO think that all flirting is sexual harassment, including asking a pretty girl for her phone number. It's forcing sexuality and sexual attention on someone. However, some sexual harassment may be more acceptable.)
Technically that wouldn't have to be sexual, but a non-sexual context would be rare. But possible.
>we can't define crimes according to what the victim feels
And its pretty damn near impossible to prove what the offender has going on in their heads unless they state what they're thinking. So in practice if i go up to a girl and grab her tits real quick nothing should happen to me
breasts aren't sexualized by us, they are desexualized in places where women walk around with them hanging out all the time
I distinctly remember when I was 11 visiting a museum and seeing a bbw's cleavage wearing a renaissance blouse thing, I couldn't stop staring. Never seen it before, my mom was catholic, always flipped the channel whenever something remotely sexual was about to come on.
Men are programmed to be sexually aroused by tits because in the caveman days they were one of the most obvious signs of a female. In that regard they're the very definition of a sexual organ.
What I don't understand is why women are convinced it's "The Patriarchy" stopping them from going topless in public. Surely every straight male in the world would be totally fine with that?
Like I said, some forms of sexual harassment may be acceptable, because unless we only want planned marriages, there is no way around it. We have to accept it if we want to be able to pick our own mates. We need to make some rules for it, and limit suffering over sexual harassment as much as possible, but it will always have to exist in our current model for finding romantic partners. A suggestion for a couple of rules that would make things much better would be to stop doing it to total strangers, and stop if the other person doesn't like it. But when you give a person sexual attention they may not want, it can't be anything but sexual harassment, technically speaking.
That was more tounge in cheek against the feminists who do think that, those who want the laws to differ between rape against men and women.
This is a good point, perhaps we could have a "guilty until proven innocent" law for this, like we already have for discrimmination against disabled. Explain why you grabbed her tits, and unless you have a good excuse, you are guilty.
It could be a misunderstanding, it isn't always sexual assault just because you don't like it. If a guy says hi to you, and you think he's doing it to sexually harass you, but it really just is to greet you, then that's your fault. You are the person sexualizing it. Same goes for touching.
If you're going to get upset over someone asking for your number or asking you out for a drink the problem is with you, not them. Just politely decline and go about your day. It's really not hard.
>If a guy says hi to you, and you think he's doing it to sexually harass you, but it really just is to greet you, then that's your fault.
>guy punches me in the face
>Hey man, what the fuck?
>NO NO NO I'm my culture, we punch people as greetings
>too lazy to finish her off
>she starts fingering herself
>she's not getting off
>start vigorously sucking and squeezing her nipples
>she cums right away with her body shaking to the rhythm of my sucking
Nipples are a sexual organ imo for this reason alone
Neanderthal women with an IQ of like 10 breastfed their children - why? Because it felt good. Same reason fucking feels good, early humans wouldn't even bother to breed unless it did.
>>want to argue but I can't because no anonymity
kek, what a fucking pussy.
Kill yourself, you are shame to man kind.
Fuck this world, feminazis can spit their shit whenever they want, and wont be challenged becouse fucking muh anonymity
Female breasts are a secondary sex trait. They are considered sexy because they identify the owner as a sexually healthy female. Men need sexually healthy females for reproduction, so evolution would have it that breasts are considered sexy so we pursue humans with these positive sex traits.
As someone with tits, yeah they're p much right. The whole reason women can't be topless is because breasts are considered sexual and being publicly sexual is a problem for people.
Feminazis just take it one step further and blame men for this, which I guess historically, is probably accurate. The ownership of women probably lead to "women's parts" having a necessity to be covered up - because you own a woman, her assets shouldn't be shown to anyone else.
But that was the past and we all live in the world the past created, we call it, the present. In the present, women are still proliferating the sexualisation of boobs, as much as men are, by wearing bras, push up bras, low cut tops, anything that makes cleavage look good. So you can't really blame men for this situation, or the patriarchy, since the men you're blaming are long gone and probably dust by now. We can blame the status quo of the world, but its unlikely to change because women see their own breasts as somewhat sexual too. Otherwise they wouldn't go to such lengths to make them look good for other people.
Also, the whole idea of boobs being ALWAYS SEXUAL is ridiculous, when you consider that other things can be sometimes sexual. Most of the times, tongues, backs, hands, necks, and eyes aren't sexual - thus allowed to be publicly displayed to some extent - but there are times when they are, I love a back arch as much as the next bisexual woman, I love it when my neck gets stroked by dainty pretty hands, while i stare into some eyes - all of that gets me aroused as fuck. Yet we're allowed to display those things, because they're not always sexual - but netiher are boobs.
tldr, nobody would give a shit if you got your tits out inpublic desu, people would stare for all of about 20 minutes before it stopped being a problem for anyone - in my country at least.
Rape is not compatible to pedophilia. Pedophilia is the attraction aka harmless. Rape is a violation of someone's body, personal space, privacy, rights as a human being, and respect. Men can be raped too anon.
its only rape if its penis in vagoo/anus/mouth - thats the literal definition of rape.
Sexual assault is any assault which is carried out sexually. So if you're a foot fetishist and you bite someone's foot, that's a sexual assault - the issue is proving it. Whereas it is almost objectively a sexual assault or not, you have to prove this in a court of law and have it agreed upon by other people. If you can't prove it was a sexual assault, you'll end up with a regular ol' assault charge.
>i argued with one idiot which means the whole of this argument is idiotic
You're and idiot.
Men can be raped, only by other men though. If a woman inserts an object forcefully into your anus or mouth, that counts as a sexual assault, because its not a penis.
The more you know.