Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 3, 2011 at 3:30pm

Sounds like somebody needs to work one out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on July 3, 2011 at 4:19pm

Not sure what you are implying hah , but the girl I was seeing went away for the summer and she'll be back soon , so I may be a little sexually repressed right now ... but how many men aren't!?

At least I want to devour them , but my sex drive is much higher than most males I am practically 100% certain of that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 3, 2011 at 4:29pm

Most young males would feel that way. I can sympathize.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by anti_supernaturalist on July 3, 2011 at 1:29pm

Hatred of sexuality, especially women’s sexuality is a xian curse

• You've seen enough TnA in NatGeo to know that many cultures have strongly accepting attitudes towards open display of secondary and primary sex characteristics. In fact, Polynesian societies from which words  like tabu and kapu derive do not employ those terms to enforce “female modesty”. The missionaries created the mumu.

However, in the Big-3 monster theisms = judaism, xianity, and islam, "modesty" in dress and behavior especially directed toward women results from paternalistic social control of human behavior which stiles itself as "morality" but really is religio-political force used by men against women. Women’s rights do not exist in islamic countries. Women’s rights in the US are being attacked every day by xian thugs and their supporters in local, state, and federal government.

* the real issue -- male supremacist social control

Fundie xian males, like their fundie muslim and jewish brothers, shudder at a technological world in which mental agility has replaced physical strength as the core measure of economic utility. This reordering of values strips away a ancient core faith-based lie: god-ordained male supremacy.

Unresolved to this day is a decades long struggle over gender equality -- equal productive and reproductive rights. Whom does The House and Senate back? The relevant group, women themselves, tens of millions of them? Or white male second-hand-god salesmen? Spewing pro-birth at any price. One hundred year old social darwinism tarted up as "family values". Fundies are obvious offenders, but RCs run a close second.

Women's aspirations, self realization, reproductive self-determination must be crushed by direct force. Xian domestic terrorism, like muslim domestic terrorism, humiliates, intimidates, and batters women back to submission. Protected by complicit federal and state officials, cells of xian thugs have been targeting women and their humane values for decades.

Fundie irrationality drives scientific knowledge about sex from America's schools just as it drives medical research abroad. Xian political ideologues must eventually embrace state totalitarianism. Their "truths" can never win popular support. An open society will repudiate their nihilism composed of literalist lies, morally repugnant beliefs, and puritanical rules.

anti_supernaturalist

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J. Ratzinger on July 3, 2011 at 1:55pm

I have long been a proponent of gender equality, and I have never liked this anti-female rule which allows me as a male to mow my lawn without a shirt on, or to walk down the street topless, or to swim in the municipal swimming pool wearing just shorts, but which disallows females the same privilege or right. It is a sexist rule based on religious values, which deem body parts which are involved in procreation to be unclean, unwholesome and dirty. The mans nipples get a pass because they serve no sexual purpose, but a woman's nipples are profane so they are dirty in the eyes of the faithful. I reject this religiously motivated principle of discriminatory gender bias, but whenever I advocate that women should be granted Equality to walk down the street topless 'if' they want, or mow their lawn topless 'if' they want or to swim topless etc, 'IF' they want just like a man can choose to do 'if' he wants, then I am attacked by feminists who think it should not be allowed.

 

Who would have ever thought that Feminists would argue against a man who is advocating for legal Equality rights for women!

 

I often get battered by Feminist women for advocating equality for women in this regard, so then I point these anti-equality feminists to a group of feminists who. like me, want to see women treated with equanimity under the law:( http://www.tera.ca/  ) 'The Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA) helps women who encounter difficulty going without tops in public places in Canada and the USA, and informs the public on this issue.'

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chrissy on July 3, 2011 at 2:53pm

Female breasts may turn men on sexually but their first and MAIN purpose is to feed their babies,just as every other parts of our bodies have it's own function.sooooo breasts aren't strictly to attract men.Are we all forgetting that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on July 3, 2011 at 2:59pm

Not at all.  That is why their enlarged shape (compared to those of other animals) signals sexual maturity.  This is another example of nature using one thing to achieve multiple purposes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on July 3, 2011 at 3:02pm

ummmm ... they wouldn't really be having those babies if men didn't want to have sex with the women. So I don't think you can say anything about the 'main function' of female breasts being 'to feed their babies' ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 3, 2011 at 3:32pm

The primary function of breasts in mammals is to feed young. No one should be disputing that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on July 3, 2011 at 4:16pm

But we are not talking about all mammals , we are talking about female homosapiens!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 3, 2011 at 4:28pm

Are you suggesting that breasts in "female homo-sapiens" is an example of convergent evolution and that it developed independently from breasts in other mammals with only an ancillary role of feeding young? That is quite a claim!

Let's try it this way. Ask yourself if a woman can have sex without breasts. Then, ask yourself if a woman can feed a resulting baby without breasts (barring a wet nurse or baby formula).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on July 3, 2011 at 7:03pm

ahhh , but you are barring the wet nurse ... which have been around since the beginning of time.  

 

What would happen if the mother died?  The baby would be fed from another woman in the tribe , perhaps a sister or aunt or someone else altogether.  

 

Sure women can have sex with their breasts covered.  Just like they can raise a child without breast feeding them!  

 

Just curious ... would you say the primary function of a penis is to urinate or is it's primary purpose to ejaculate semen for impregnation?  

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• …
• 23
• Next ›
• Page