FreeTheNipple vs NoPage3

[MN164]

How do we square these two apparently feminist debates?

Can "choice" really be the distinction that unites these causes? There is a strong case that models making a living have a choice (not just page 3 or porn but also "art" photography).

I'm confused. Help.

I'm afraid, I'm unfamiliar with 'Lucy and Lazlo' and indeed your accusation.

Of course I don't "find a young woman playing with her child 'sexual'". What an absurd and nasty accusation. What on earth gave you that idea? Are you projecting? Do you find that scenario sexual?

No. Lucy and Lazlo is one of the paintings. Your argument was that a naked picture of a woman of childbearing age is sexual. Ergo, the picture of Lucy, a young naked woman playing with her child is sexual. That is your argument, not mine. Clearly you also think it's rubbish.

eclipse, I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that breasts are inherently sexual because they incorporate an 'erogenous zone'?

The primary purpose of breasts is to nourish infants. Society as it stands does not seem to understand that point.

An awful lot of female skin is an erogenous zone!

"The breasts are shriveled and saggy..." Wow. Just wow. Is that really what you see? What a horrible description.

"Adult humans are not usually sexually attracted to other humans that look like they are too old or too young to procreate." I guess you better tell that to all those over the age of 50 having sex then .

I can't be arsed with the rest of it. What ridiculous arguments.

Welcome to FWR, eclipse. Evo psych is something I disagree with!

It appears you have made a big mistake and assumed far too much.

I clicked on your link and scrolled through the five pictures featured on the first page of the site. In these pictures there are 15 women and no children. Most are definitely post menopausal, two are possibly not.

I didn't bother clicking through her entire portfolio over god knows how many years as I found the initial pictures unappealing and boring. I assumed that the pictures on the page that you linked to are the ones you are referring too.

It seems that now you have decided to cast aspersions on a stranger on the internet based on your projected opinion on some picture that I haven't even looked at. Have a word with yourself.

My argument was not "a naked picture of a childbearing age is inherently sexual". That is a gross simplification and bastardisation of my argument.

My argument was that the five pictures that were featured on the page that you linked to were of women that were post menopausal. Therefore inherently not sexual due to sexual selection (see Darwin). And not because of some wishy washy bullcrap of them being painted by a woman that's painting women as people and not objects. I then said it would have been more difficult to paint fit, healthy and fertile women in similar poses with out sexualising them. Albeit not impossible. Perhaps you should read my previous posts and try to understand them before slandering a stranger on the internet.

Why you think that a painting of a women looking sexual reduces her to an object I have no idea. ANd I'm not too bothered in finding out as it happens.

Hi Yoni, that's your prerogative of course and I wish you the best of luck with that. I prefer science, logic and reason to inform my opinion over ideology or dogma.

Can you not use the word "bastardisation" please? It is misogynistic.

CailinDana has you spot on Eclipse. No casting aspersions going on there. The way you describe women, human beings is vile.

It isn't us reducing women to objects. You are doing that all by yourself quite well.

Hi Yoni! Yes skin is definitely erogenous in a lot of areas and can differ in place and sensitivity in people. It was touched upon in the wiki link I posted.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erogenous_zone#Nonspecific_zones

Evo psych isn't science or logic or reasoning . The fact you think it is says a lot about your 'logic' though.

eclipse, what is your reasoning? Are you arguing that pre-menopausal breasts are inherently sexual simply because they contain an 'erogenous zone'?

Evo psych and Darwin are far removed from each other.

HTH. Bye.

Oh, you can't be bothered to look at more than a few pictures because you are bored by non sexualised pictures of women but you expect us all to read your lengthy posts and follow your links?

Jolly good.

I didn't mention 'evo psych'. DO you often put words into peoples mouths. Look at all those straw men going up. You've now bored me.

Hi Buffy, does a day go by without mentioning your PHD?

eclipse, would you mind terribly answering my question please?

Have we bored you?

Oh no. Sad face.

If you want to find out more about breasts in humans, I'm sure you could flick through the relevant tomes and journals yourself Buffy. Seeing as you have a PHD and all.