OP
OP
Oldspice
Senior Member
And you think Old Spice smells nice? Are you mad?I'm wishing I hadn't thrown away that bottle of Hai Karate now!
Unlike Grrrr
Why is it illegal for women to be topless
- Thread starter Oldspice
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Unlike Grrrr
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
Matthew_T
"Young and Ex-whippet"
- Location
- Prestatyn, North Wales
I think religion had quite a large initial influence on many things. Sexuality being one of the most influenced. From then on, it was just taken as the norm.
Such as building houses from bricks and mortar. It originated from the Great Fire of London when the new laws came in that every new house had to be made of brick. People around the country saw a great advantage of doing this and copied it.
I think it is socially unacceptable to 'expose' yourself now. Even though technically it wont be offending anybody, there will always be some silly sod who doesnt want to see a mans 'dongle' and a womans 'veggie patch'.
Such as building houses from bricks and mortar. It originated from the Great Fire of London when the new laws came in that every new house had to be made of brick. People around the country saw a great advantage of doing this and copied it.
I think it is socially unacceptable to 'expose' yourself now. Even though technically it wont be offending anybody, there will always be some silly sod who doesnt want to see a mans 'dongle' and a womans 'veggie patch'.
penguinking9
Well-Known Member
- Location
- The industrial North West
Ah, the problem there is that we're not talking about sexual stimulation, but about sexual characteristics likely to attract a mate.
Male birds of paradise get no sexual stimulation from their extravagant tail feathers, yet that is the characteristic that attracts the female.
Larger breasts mean more milk, therefore a greater chance of successful child rearing, which makes a woman with larger breasts more attractive to potential mates.
THat this becomes linked to sexual arousal is evolutions way of making a point in bold print.
(no one likes bottoms)
?????
What a load of old cobblers.
penguinking9
Well-Known Member
- Location
- The industrial North West
Thank you, I try.
Cubist
Still wavin'
- Location
- Ovver 'thill
Sorry, that's bollocks.
Male humans were originally attracted to female bottoms. The twin rounded appearance was in itself a visual stimulus, and given that the female was on all fours, the breasts were not visible, therefore remained simply as mammary teats, similar to those of a dog or any other quadruped. As we evolved to stand up, the visual stimulus of the backside was lost, and the breasts took over as that gently rounded visual stimulus. The fat and other breast tissue have no useful part to play in feeding infants, but do play a part in providing that stimulus. So they are in fact an almost gratuitous attractant.
penguinking9
Well-Known Member
- Location
- The industrial North West
Fair enough.
I stand corrected.
(Though I do wonder how we know this, I've not read up on it and am interested in the evidence)
I stand corrected.
(Though I do wonder how we know this, I've not read up on it and am interested in the evidence)
coffeejo
Ælfrēd
- Location
- West Somerset
Can't believe no-one's mentioned Freud 
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
I'm not so sure there is any difference in the eyes of the law with respect to exposure of the upper half of male or female bodies.
The problem arises when someone complains to the police that they feel alarmed, distressed or harrassed at the sight. The police are required to deal with the complaint and will ask the semi-naked person to cover up, if they don't follow the instruction of a police officer, then the legal process takes over.
I don't think there is legal discrimination re male or female toplessness, but it does seem that exposure of female breasts is more likely to give rise to complaints from the general public of alarm, distress and harassment than bare chested males.
Footnote. The above post could be a complete load of cobblers.
The problem arises when someone complains to the police that they feel alarmed, distressed or harrassed at the sight. The police are required to deal with the complaint and will ask the semi-naked person to cover up, if they don't follow the instruction of a police officer, then the legal process takes over.
I don't think there is legal discrimination re male or female toplessness, but it does seem that exposure of female breasts is more likely to give rise to complaints from the general public of alarm, distress and harassment than bare chested males.
Footnote. The above post could be a complete load of cobblers.
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
Breasts can be trouble, even when covered.
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZVzB7y52U[/media]
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZVzB7y52U[/media]
Marshmallow_Fluff
Guest
- Location
- Beds
Well, apologies here, but I believe mine are composed of terminal duct lobular units or else known as TDLUs (at least 60%), quite a few sebacious glands, connective tissues, white fat and the suspensory Cooper's ligaments.. So by the looks of it they're a lot more than just mounds of fat.
Now we can all pretend that our breasts are not difining us and they are not objects of attraction and definitely shouldn't be considered sexual stimulators in any way, shape or form, but, hey, go tell that to all the women that are severely traumatised and in desperate need of therapy because they lost their boobs to cancer! I'm sure they will understand when you explain to them that their loss is just mounds of fat!! And I can ensure you that their trauma has nothing to do with their ability (or lack of it) to breast feed..
