Another interesting test would be the nipple skin color test. Just ask the Discovery channel or National Geographic about their blur policies. Caucasian female nipples get the blur treatment 100% percent of the time, the more pigment in the skin the lower the blur ratio.
Also, in the USA, women can show ALL of their breast EXCEPT the nipple, which ironically, is the part that men also have.
I just don’t get it… shakes head in some ways we are still very much in the dark ages…
I can only imagine a comment like this was made by an Englishman.
Anyway… I think boobs and all their accoutrements are awesome.
Also, what is anyone doing on instaturd or any schmuckerberg property? It’s a wasteland of human excrement and bile.
In that case, surely they wouldn’t object to being outed for their views on sexuality (by listing their names as @shaddack suggested)?
There is such a sense, but yes, it is informal, and my point is, it’s a bit of an illusion. A useful illusion, much of the time, but not always. Wings are kind of a good example. A wing is meant for flying? Tell that to the penguin, who use it to swim. Tell that to the ostrich, who use it as as a rudder to make quick adjustments while running. It’s theoretically possible (there may even be an example but even though something tickles at the edge of my memory, I can’t think of one and google’s no help right now) for there to be a creature that doesn’t fly, but has strong wings that it uses mainly to bludgeon or fend off predators. A wing isn’t meant for flying, flying evolved because there happened to be a wing-like structure there and it turned out to be useful, in small increments, over successive generations, to get closer to flight-like behavior.
My point in pointing out the illusion (a point which you already said you agree with, so the above is mostly just an exercise in me being pedantic, sorry, it’s an itch that must be scratched sometimes!), we’re imbuing the motive to the structure, it’s not already there. And IMHO it’s our right, and our responsibility, to change if they’re not working out anymore: if we had wings we’d always used for flying, but now all the prey was in the water, and using those flying wings to swim with was our best chance not to starve to death, saying “but that wing is meant for flying” really isn’t a good enough argument.
And considering we evolved a reasoning brain, and within that brain a sense of fairness too, for a “purpose” just as valid as the “purpose” of the female breast, I see no compelling reason for prioritizing the latter’s “purpose” and enshrining it in law at the cost of the former. (Particularly when, as has already been stated, “no showing nipples at all for anybody!” is a valid approach that would respect both… I mean, not necessarily the path we should take… I can understand and respect “we must protect the right of people in general to publicly expose their nipples” as a philosophy, too. It’s just “we must protect the right of men to publicly expose their nipples while ensuring women are forbidden from doing so” that’s bizarre)
Agreed that it doesn’t have a purpose, but as to how you might suggest that it does, I’d go with:
I mean, fair enough if you don’t actually believe it has a purpose and were just using the word informally, as I said, I was just kind of being pedantic about it to make a point… but you DID kind of suggest that there was a purpose to that particular bit of evolution that gave it special standing as a reason one gender should be forced to cover up and another doesn’t have to.
You are wrong. I never indicated or suggested only “certain things”. I want to know why sexualized things are considered “bad”. You read in to this what does not exist.
Why would we use the media to “draw the line”? Let’s just try and treat people the same without regard to what organs they were born with. Is that so hard to get? That means if you want to ban nipples, you ban them for both sexes.
There is no sentiment here. It is a simple fact that women are objectified in the majority of video games in which they appear. Women’s breasts aren’t overtly sexual. It is the objectification of women in to one dimensional sexual objects with no other purpose than to feed the masoginist that people have a problem with.
What if you want to ban penises instead? Would it be for both sexes too?
[ducks]
[tries to imagine a sexual line, fails]
Yes, if it was my desire to ban penises, I would ban both men and women from displaying their penis in public.
Sure, and it’s true that what it might be useful for is entirely mutable. I’m not sure of flightless birds that use wings in defense, but that’s a key feature of beetles. But it leads to wings built very differently from ones that are used to fly, and I tend to agree with Mayr that without knowing why those differences might have been selected for, you don’t entirely understand them.
Anyway, you don’t need to apologize for being pedantic, or I should too. 
We were just making different points.
The relevant one here is yours - that what happened doesn’t tell us what should happen, and so it isn’t valid to argue from evolutionary function. Just as an aside, which happened to involve some conflicting language, I also wanted to point out the assumed historical function isn’t actually substantiated. It’s only a tangent to the topic here, though, and could be moved.
Certainly! However, to acheive fairness you should also ban the equivalent. Otherwise you could bypass racism laws and say, “Hey, all we’re doing is banning dark-skinned people in diners.”
Though it reminds me of a, possibly apocryphal, story about early public nudity laws, where they specified what was and wasn’t allowed to be shown in public… except they neglected the minor point that, from a technical perspective, contrary to common vernacular, the lady-parts in question were internal, so it was theoretically legal for a woman to be seen nude from the lower front.
Yes, but… whistleblower protection and all that.
Anonymity is a pain in the ass, except when it is not a pain in the ass.
If specific laws were only theoretically legal, they were doing it wrong. Then again, I suspect that’s their whole racket.
On the other side of the coin, the right to confront your accuser.
Depends on if we are in the realm of civil or criminal law, I think. Not a lawyer, not wanting to be a lawyer, disliking the lawyers.
Hey, rules are rules.
I don’t think think evolution has a purpose but it can produce life forms that have individual parts that serve purposes to the individuals that possess them. And attracting mates for reproduction is one of those things life forms like to do.
Why is this hard?
Is that what she said?
This is all I was trying to point out
And I don’t really think we have to be limited by our biology. we can choose to look past it. My only point was that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to blame anyone or anything for it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
