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.

Oh you aren't new?

Well, colour me shocked.

I suggest you start in the science section and skip right on past the section with baseless ideologies and other articles of faith.

Imbeciles? True colours showing there. MN doesn't take kindly to personal attacks.

I can't believe a man of your logic and intelligence doesn't know what the word bastard means? Bastardisation being a form of that word. Please don't imply I'm being 'sensitive'. You are using a misogynistic word.

You didn't have to mention evo psych. You've just been spouting the bullshit it.

You seriously want to lecture women about breasts? Really?

Alright Buffy, impress us all. Why do women's breasts develop at puberty? Why are they the only mammal to do so? Why don't they just develop after child birth when lactating like other mammals?

Why do men's voices break? Why are they usually 10% taller and 20% greater in mass than women?

Why do men have more hair than women? Why do men have facial hair?
Why do women have less hair and no facial hair?

What exactly have I said that is misogynistic? Have you confused 'misogyny' with opinions you dislike and disagree with?

Have you confused misogyny with anything that does not fit into your dogmatic ideologically driven narrow view of the world?

Scallops, I'm so sorry that the manner in which I expressed myself hasn't lived up to your high standards and consistent exquisite example. I will try better for you I swear it!

Blah blah blah blah.

Thought you were bored?

Can we get back to the point please?! ecplise, why do you think breasts are inherently sexual?

I admire your tenacity Jessica.

scallops, I do not like it when people ignore direct questions. It is just rude.

I don't like those paintings. The group one on the home page and several others made me think of piles of concentration camp victims or victims waiting to be executed. It's the grey, corpse-like skin tones. So I suppose if her aim is to provoke a reaction she has succeeded.

None of it feels terribly original either, apart from the group ones. The others wouldn't cause a raised eyebrow in any gallery of modern art.

Hi Jessica. I don't think that breasts are inherently sexual at all. I think some breasts are.

This is the relevant bit I posted before:

Biological and evolutionary science posits that women's breasts act as an indicator of a fertile women as it differentiates them from prepubescent girls. Also, even though they are not full of milk, and are in fact just fatty deposits, it would have given men the illusion of being full of milk, therefore an indicator of a healthy mate that would be able to give ample nourishment to children. As pointed out earlier, saggy shriveled breasts as in Calindana's photo are an indicator of an older women that has gone through, or soon to go through the menopause and unable to bare children. So these kinds of breasts would not be sexualised by humans.

The kind of breasts that would have these attributes are the ones that you have typically found in page three of the Sun newspaper. But I don't think that women or men should be forced to be covered up at all. For example, not all men's torsos are inherently sexual. But a man's torso that was visible abs and and developed pectoral muscles are sexual to most hetrosexual women and gay men. A flabby old man's torso or a boys torso wouldn't be. But as humans are conscious minds are in control of our actions and we should be expected to control ourselves and act in a dignified manner if you see another human that is sexual attractive. Therefore I do not think it is fair to expect men or women to cover up whether they are classically attractive or not.

Evening all

I agree Jessica.

Sorry for ignoring your questions. Other posters disagreed with some of the points I made and saw fit to try to twist my words by pathetically and erroneously suggesting that I'm a pedophile and everything became very schoolyardish after that.

Evening Olivia. Do we have to play nicely with the Voice. Of. Reason?

My last post was to Jessica.

As for everybody else, If you disagree with somebody, why don't you just tackle the opinion rather than resorting to putting words in there mouth, erecting straw men, casting aspersions and all other manner of childish behaviour. Just a friendly suggesting for the future. Good day, all.

Evening olivia.

eclipse, so only some women have to accept that parts of their bodies are sexualised, and erogenous zones have naff all to do with it?

Within your view, why do people who are post menopausal still have sex?

And by your logic, eclipse, an image of a breast feeding woman would be the most sexualised image of all.

-'their' not 'there'. I guess there's a typo for you to all to concentrate on for another six posts without actually refuting any of the points I've made while you just shout "misogynist" with your fingers in your ears.

By the way nobody has actually given an actual reason why they think I'm a misogynist apart from Scallops mentioning that I used the word "bisation" which I didn't even know could be construed as a misogynistic. Indeed it actually a different word to the word b with a completely different meaning. And I've only ever heard the word b used to describe men. I dunno how you'd twist it to be misogynistic but I'm sure posters of your talents certainly could. And if that is the only thing that you can point to that indicates that I'm a misogynist then you reallly are grasping at straws here.