The Danes really have it going for them

[Darius871]

All threadjacking aside, can somebody explain to me what the hell they mean by "desexualizing" breasts? Should we desexualize vaginas next? Or are there sane individuals who seriously believe the sexual appeal of a great rack is nothing more than a social construct?

If the latter, there's no grounds to assume there's a mere social construct when there is a simple evolutionary explanation: women with large breasts are statistically more likely to produce a sufficient quantity (maybe quality too?) of milk to sustain numerous and healthy offspring as compared to flat-chested women, and therefore men who find sizable breasts sexually attractive would be those most likely to pass on their genes to future generations. It just makes logical sense.

That's without even mentioning just the simple fact that any physical characteristic which clearly distinguishes the female body from the male body (including but not limited to vaginas, wider hips, and yes breasts) is just naturally attractive to any heterosexual male. Also plenty of shrinks would tell you that breasts are irrevocably sexualized because they are subconsciously reminiscent of the most gratifying moments in the first months of our lives. Some Freudians might even point out an Oedipal aspect to it, but they're just a bunch of freaks.

In conclusion, bare boobies make each of us pop a tent whether we like it or not, and seeing them at the pool every day would not change that.

[Cort Haus]

I thought that breasts mimicked the shape of the old-school ass-cleavage to remind us of the good old quadrupedal days.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I thought that breasts mimicked the shape of the old-school ass-cleavage to remind us of the good old quadrupedal days.

That was my belief as well.

Darius - I think seeing them every day would change that. Bare ankles have been known to "cause a stir" at various times in history. Now, unless you have a particular fetish, they go unnoticed.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Darius871
All threadjacking aside, can somebody explain to me what the hell they mean by "desexualizing" breasts? Should we desexualize vaginas next? Or are there sane individuals who seriously believe the sexual appeal of a great rack is nothing more than a social construct?

That's pretty much all I've talked about.

Breasts are sexual to men.

These women have decided that they'd rather breasts not be sexual.

They think that if they bare their breasts, their breasts will be desexualized. They believe this because they do not understand men and they think they are right about how reality works.

They are delusional.

Of course to be surprised at finding delusion in the world, would be like being surprised to find salt in the ocean.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Darius871
All threadjacking aside, can somebody explain to me what the hell they mean by "desexualizing" breasts? Should we desexualize vaginas next? Or are there sane individuals who seriously believe the sexual appeal of a great rack is nothing more than a social construct?

I thought the same thing when I first heard of this initiative. I especially thought along the lines that apart from a few freaks: somebody with boobs equals a female. (And that would mean you'd naturally be more inclined to check those features out if you like females to begin with. Edited for clarity.)

Sadly the question hasn't been much stressed because just as you'd expect the media has been more interested in the very fact that there was an event about boobs than the fact that the official point of the event was to fight the very tendency that makes the media care about it. A paradox of sorts.

One thing that would make this make sense is to look at it from the perspective that the gov't shouldn't make any law that gives any one gender more rights than the other. In this case, if the gov't decides you can walk down a public street wearing nothing but jeans, there should be no legal difference as to whether you're a man or a woman.

[Wezil]

That was the crux of the decision here in Ontario when the law was changed. Since then the instances of female toplessness have not increased in any noticable way.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Wezil
That was the crux of the decision here in Ontario when the law was changed. Since then the instances of female toplessness have not increased in any noticable way.

Oh, that's interesting actually.

I'll believe the actual effect was slim - not unlike how very few people at Danish beaches will expose their genitals even though it's perfectly legal. Maybe it's time for a law that says nobody should be wearing anything at any time. I'd vote in favour of that.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Wezil
Darius - I think seeing them every day would change that. Bare ankles have been known to "cause a stir" at various times in history. Now, unless you have a particular fetish, they go unnoticed.

Ankles don't have any inherent sexual relevance and are indistinguishable between the sexes, so they could be considered hot solely due to the social taboo.

Originally posted by Monk
One thing that would make this make sense is to look at it from the perspective that the gov't shouldn't make any law that gives any one gender more rights than the other. In this case, if the gov't decides you can walk down a public street wearing nothing but jeans, there should be no legal difference as to whether you're a man or a woman.

Oh I totally agree with the gender equality aspect of it all, it's just that nutcase treating teh boobin' as asexual that is ridiculous.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Monk


Oh, that's interesting actually.

I'll believe the actual effect was slim - not unlike how very few people at Danish beaches will expose their genitals even though it's perfectly legal. Maybe it's time for a law that says nobody should be wearing anything at any time. I'd vote in favour of that.

I imagine the beaches are where it has the most impact here. Private establishments can still enforce dress codes but they must be equal. The precedent case was a U of Guelph student that took her top off while walking home from class. She was charged with "public indecency" or some such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwen_Jacobs

edit - I guess I should warn that link is not work friendly by our societal norms.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Darius871


Ankles don't have any inherent sexual relevance and are indistinguishable between the sexes, so they could be considered hot solely due to the social taboo.

Societies that have no taboos against female toplessness would seem to be strong evidence that just isn't so.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Wezil
Societies that have no taboos against female toplessness would seem to be strong evidence that just isn't so.

Just because women in society X are allowed to prance about with their knockers showing, that doesn't necessarily mean that heterosexual men in X don't dig it. If anything they're doing themselves a favor.

[Wezil]

Yeah that could be, but I just don't think so.

That said, I certainly want to DO MY PART and help desexualize breasts in my society. All appropriate women (you know who you are ladies) should begin going topless immediately so I can tire of seeing them.

[Darius871]

Same here, I've already gone to the local Topfreedom office to volunteer any services that can help the movement. Oilboy, masseur, oilboy, whatever it takes.

[Wezil]

Siro made a good start with this thread but it needs to be said


More pictures!

[DanS]

It's amazing that Blake has made such a hash of a simple concept as the occasion of sin. In less than three pages.