Brehettes: Stop sexualizing women's breasts

[FeverPitch2]

I wasn't addressing you.

Then my bad, breh.

 

[brandy]

Do you think women's breasts should be de-sexualized?

Yes. If a woman isn’t being sexual, don’t sexualize them.

But in this circumstance, even though she isn’t being sexual, she still needs to adhere to etiquette around folks’ kids. She wasn’t topless when they dropped their child off.

What if it's hot?

We are talking about children.

 

[Mastamimd]

Then my bad, breh.

All good homie

 

[Ducktales]

It's the perfect scenario to use.

No it’s not, because it wouldn’t be appropriate for a man (neighbor) to watch a 7 year old child and take his shirt off in their view. That’s weird. It’s not the beach or even somewhere in public. It’s a intimate setting. Otherwise I actually do agree with the title of your post

 

[FeverPitch2]

Yes. If a woman isn’t being sexual, don’t sexualize them.

But in this circumstance, even though she isn’t being sexual, she still needs to adhere to etiquette around folks’ kids. She wasn’t topless when they dropped their child off.



We are talking about children.

So much double talk here. Either breasts are non-sexual or they aren't.
Women's legs and thighs used to be sexualized and it was considered indecent and immoral to show them in public.
Since then, women's legs and thighs have been de-sexualized and no one bats an eye if they're visible in public or in front of children or whatever.

 

[broller]

would she be pissed if my son touched them

Frfr.

So many times at the crowded club dance floor women be holding on to your chest as they walk by for "balance ". Now imagine if a man did that to a woman's so called non sexual breasts...there'd be hell to pay.

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

But it's not.
There are women who think women's breasts should be de-sexualized.
They believe that if you are aroused or offended by the female breast or nipple, then that's because you've been taught to view women as sex objects and that breasts are for the sexual pleasure of men rather than their intended purpose, which is to feed children.

It was funny b/c it’s sounds like something I’ve heard middle schoolers talk about. Hell I think I might’ve even wondered about this type of stuff in grade school…

No real shade to you.

But to your point, I’m notorious for this mentality.

Not because I don’t get current social context of human sexuality within civilization but b/c it’s kinda true.

Prior to colonization plenty of chicks walked around with boobies out. Obviously things have changed but from a practical standpoint, they are primarily for feeding babies.

As women, we see titties daily so it’s just not a big deal to us.

But I happily acknowledge their sexualization by men b/c while they are just reproductive markers of sexual dimorphism and mammary glands used to provide nutrition to cute babies…

…

Dear lord do they EVER feel great in a fine man’s hands.And dudes have rough hands too…
Thank GOD for nipples! So glad nature can be both practical and pleasurable.

Sorry. Tangent.
But as for ur scenario, um…just b/c I’m unimpressed by titties doesn’t mean I know where that chicks’ head is.

And my parents taught me that women touch on kids just like men do….so regardless of context or me feeling “meh” about boobies, she might be on her molestor time. And thus needs to be kicked to sleep.

 

[FeverPitch2]

No it’s not, because it wouldn’t be appropriate for a man (neighbor) to watch a 7 year old child and take his shirt off in their view. That’s weird

You ever see a parent march up to a man outdoors and insist he put his shirt on because the kids can see?

 

[FeverPitch2]

It was funny b/c it’s sounds like something I’ve heard middle schoolers talk about. Hell I think I might’ve even wondered about this type of stuff in grade school…

No real shade to you.

But to your point, I’m notorious for this mentality.

Not because I don’t get current social context of human sexuality within civilization but b/c it’s kinda true.

Prior to colonization plenty of chicks walked around with boobies out. Obviously things have changed but from a practical standpoint, they are primarily for feeding babies.

As women, we see titties daily so it’s just not a big deal to us.

But I happily acknowledge their sexualization by men b/c while they are just reproductive markers of sexual dimorphism and mammary glands used to provide nutrition to cute babies…

…

Dear lord do they EVER feel great in a fine man’s hands.And dudes have rough hands too…
Thank GOD for nipples! So glad nature can be both practical and pleasurable.

Sorry. Tangent.
But as for ur scenario, um…just b/c I’m unimpressed by titties doesn’t mean I know where that chicks’ head is.

And my parents taught me that women touch on kids just like men do….so regardless of context or me feeling “meh” about boobies, she might be on her molestor time. And thus needs to be kicked to sleep.

I appreciate your candor.

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

So much double talk here. Either breasts are non-sexual or they aren't.
Women's legs and thighs used to be sexualized and it was considered indecent and immoral to show them in public.
Since then, women's legs and thighs have been de-sexualized and no one bats an eye if they're visible in public or in front of children or whatever.

This is very rigid and limited thinking. In our world there is paradox and nuance which problematizes simple conclusions. Especially when it comes to biology, human nature, society and social norms.

 

[bourgeoisie tall freak]

what in god's name...

 

[brandy]

So much double talk here. Either breasts are non-sexual or they aren't.
Women's legs and thighs used to be sexualized and it was considered indecent and immoral to show them in public.
Since then, women's legs and thighs have been de-sexualized and no one bats an eye if they're visible in public or in front of children or whatever.

No double talk at all. Sexuality depends on context. I an talking about manners.

My justification of her putting on her shirt isn’t sexuality. It’s basic manners. You don’t sit around children half-naked.

 

[FeverPitch2]

This is very rigid and limited thinking. In our world there is paradox and nuance which problematizes simple conclusions. Especially when it comes to biology, human nature, society and social norms.

You're right.
The call for de-sexualization doesn't allow for nuance.

 

[FeverPitch2]

No double talk at all. Sexuality depends on context. I an talking about manners.

My justification of her putting on her shirt isn’t sexuality. It’s basic manners. You don’t sit around children half-naked.

So how do beaches and pools work?

 

[Neo. The Only. The One.]

…

…

Dear lord do they EVER feel great in a fine man’s hands.And dudes have rough hands too…
Thank GOD for nipples! So glad nature can be both practical and pleasurable.

When will it be my turn?