• GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    We teach that for generations. Turns out the sexual urge can’t just be “taught” away, people will look regardless, even unconsciously.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I dont think anyone considers boobs as purely sexual. Due to their biological function they are also distinctly maternal, but within the context of sex i suppose they are considered erotic because full breasts biologically indicate good health, and the ability to successfully nurse children.

        Same reason we find nice hips attractive although it serves no immediate purpose within the context of sex. But they are also called child bearing hips for that reason; we find them attractive because they indicate a mate able to successfully give birth.

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean, the tits thing is a myth. I’ve seen women who were basically flat nurse children, and women with back problems on their chests have trouble. the actual amount of tissue required is very small, or something.

          • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Of course big boobs aren’t necessary, nor are the hips. We do consider them attractive for that reason though. My point was that our sexual desires are something very primal and instinctual, and decidedly not something that can be “taught” to overcome.

    • yggstyle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      This. Everyone is thirsty. Legalizing toplessness specifically does one thing: it says a woman’s breasts are not special. Not sexual. The same as a back, a leg, a hand. That will drastically effect sexual harassment cases and what defenses a woman has to someone being a scumbag. I can stare at a guy’s chest all meeting long and nothing will come of it. Flip that. “I’m just looking, it’s not illegal”. To me that seems so much worse. It doesn’t just affect women who want the freedom- it affects all women period.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m a guy, and women’s breasts will never not be sexual to me. They are the most arousing part of the female body to me. So the whole “they aren’t sexual” thing is never going to fly. I’m sure you could find women who admit to being sexually aroused by a man’s bare chest, so I don’t see what that has to do with anything anyway.

        The simple fact is, women should be absolutely free to put their bare chest on public display as long as men are allowed to do so. I’ve been to a lot of places in the world where women going topless is legal, and have only ever seen publicly topless women in places where it is not. My experience tells me legalizing it isn’t going to cause hordes of loose women to roam the streets looking to corrupt little Johnny. But that’s what the prudes are worried about.

        • bizarroland@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t know man. Join a nudist colony for a week or two and tell me if you still get a boner every time you see a titty.

          Hell, back in the 1700s girls could have their titties out anytime they wanted to it was no big deal but if they showed an ankle or a shoulder then she was a tramp making men squirt their pants left and right.

          The things that are considered erotic are contextual, and once you are inside of the context it takes the power out of it.