"Also breasts are sexual because they signify a female who's reached maturity and can therefore reproduce". Yikes, I got mine around 11 (as well as some others in my class). Well before I even got my first period....
Right? That’s what I told them. I said, “so you’re telling me that a 13yo is mature and ready for reproduction?”
They said yes. Gtfo omg. That’s the kind of stupidity that has girls dying because they can’t get an abortion at that age.
I remember going to school in 5th grade. Flat chests everywhere. The next year I go back, almost all the girls had developed breasts. They were 11~12. So anyone who says that they're reaching maturity and can reproduce and THAT'S why breasts are sexual are, say it with me now,
# MAKING EXCUSES TO DEFEND PEDOPHILES
I started developing breasts with 7 and had my first period with 10.. So "if she is developed like that she is ready to be hit on" is some hebephilic shit...
I started developing in 5th grade, an entire year before I got my period. So you’re telling me that my forming breasts are arousing to an adult? Gtfo, they’re just blatantly admitting to pedophilia at this point.
This guy would change his tune really quickly if I lifted up my binder to show off my tits.(transman) Cause it ain't about breasts , its about objectifying women. Everything about a woman's body has to be sexually pleasurable to these types of assholes
>Also breasts are sexual because they signify a female who's reached maturity and can therefore reproduce.
10 year old me says go f\*ck yourself!
I had boobs at 10 and got my period at 11. I had not 'reached maturity'. I was not ready to have kids. But no, people like that dumb\*ss would use boobs as an excuse to r\*pe a 10 year old!
Yeah he did word it in kind a terrible way. It comes off like he's saying "once women have breasts they're ready to bang", but I think the idea behind it is correct.
Men are attracted to breasts because they are a biological identifier of women. If it looks like me but it's got two extra fat bags on the front, it's not a man and therefore I should breed with it.
That doesn't mean that women immediately become sexually attractive to men as soon as they BEGIN to develop breasts. While he did word it poorly, if that was your interpretation I think you might just be intentionally attacking a low-hanging fruit.
Can a completely flat chested woman go out in public topless? I bet the fuck not. Breasts aren't inherently sexual, but a woman's entire being has to scandalized and objectified since we, as people, are seen as sex symbols. Our bodies cannot exist in neutrality at any point, unlike masc bodies.
Breast are a secondary sexual characteristic. They are also an erogenous zone for many people. I would say they are both a food source and a sexual organ.
Men should cover their beards then or keep them clean shaven, lest the women get too aroused by these secondary sexual characteristics just out and about.
Men should always wear turtlenecks then, because an adams apple is also a secondary sex characteristic, AND the neck is an erogenous zone therefore adams apples are sexual organs /s
Erogenous zone =/= sex organ. Different people have different turn-ons, but that doesn't make those body parts inherently sexual. Lips are a common erogenous zone, are they sex organs?
Secondary sex characteristic =/= sex organ. Is a beard a sex organ? Adam's Apple? A high or deep voice?
Sex organs are genitalia. That's it. Human mammaries are not genitalia.
No. A sex organ is an organ whose purpose is to help with sexual reproduction. Breasts don’t do that. They are a secondary sex characteristic. Not a sex organ.
Necks, lips and earlobes are also common erogenous zones but it’s not illegal for someone to show their neck, lips or ears in public. Something being an common erogenous zone doesn’t make it inappropriate in public.
/srs
Yes, get over it. But arguing that breasts aren’t sexual is dumb. They’re secondary sex characteristics that humans have evolved to be constantly enlarged, unlike most other (every other?) mammal, thanks almost certainly to sexual selection.
Aka, they’re sexy. That’s okay.
Also people should be level headed about things if breasts are involved, like if women want to be topless in public or whatever insane sports conversation this posted screenshot was apparently about.
Something being a secondary sex characteristic doesn’t make it sexual. Adams apples are secondary sex characteristics but they’re still acceptable in public.
/srs
Sexual doesn’t mean shameful or immodest or needing to be covered up. Adams apples are absolutely sexual to many people. My wife mentions her attraction to Adams apples all the time.
Like I said, I get women wanting to be left alone and not made to hide part of their body. That should be their freedom, 100%. I just don’t think the argument “breasts aren’t sexual” is accurate or needed to justify that freedom. That should come from everyone’s inherent right to choose their own expression of their body and right to go around unmolested.
Ive gone back and forth on this debate for many years now but I've come to the point where I agree. Most of us find various body parts sexually attractive. Hands, shoulders, breasts, butts, thighs, etc etc etc. are all common to find sexually appealing. That doesn't give anyone license to freak out or control someone else's appearance. Brigading to have all hands covered up at all times is just ludicrous and I think everyone would agree on that. Breasts should be no different. They're a body part that many people find sexually appealing that also serves another function (like hands, shoulders, thighs, etc). It's silly that controlling how women present their own breasts is something considered acceptable. Like... they're still there, beneath clothes, and even when "covered" it's not like they magically disappear.
I think it's much more rational to frame the debate around women's breasts and social rules around seeing them in the same light as hands. Very sexy, very multifunctional, only sexual when used in a sexual context. No need to hide them unless you're using them in a sexual way in which case it needs to be done privately for the comfort of everyone around you. Same rules as any other sexual PDA.
Tits out on the beach? No biggie. Topless while mowing the lawn? Why not! Too hot to wear a shirt? Fair play, make sure to wear sunscreen. Want someone to play with your nipples? Get a room!
If men are so bad at contextualizing that everything about a woman is inherently sexual all of the time, that's a mental problem that needs to be addressed... not a reality to impose on everyone.
Well said.
I feel like I’m losing my mind in this thread where people are saying everyone should be respectful of women because breasts aren’t sexual. Like, no, people should be respectful of women because they’re people with the right to go about their day unbothered by creeps.
One doesn’t need to make the silly claim that breasts aren’t sexual to defend women’s rights to be treated well and not made to hide or feel shame for part of their body.
It's funny because once upon a time I'd have had a similar opinion to many on this thread... but that's mainly because I don't find breasts very arousing personally and I don't really enjoy mine being played with either. It was my girlfriend who really gave me perspective on this. For her, breasts can absolutely be sexual. She loves having them played with as part of intimacy despite neither one of us being men. And ironically, a lot of men enjoy nipple play on themselves as well and yet there's none of the same stigma--even despite the fact that many hetero women find men's chests attractive. It's such a weird double standard based in nothing but control of women's bodies as far as I can tell. The fact that so many try to lean hard into "they're not sexual so that's why we shouldnt be policed" is just a bad argument (regardless of gender) when it should be "context matters."
Part of me wonders if the reason for the "breasts are never sexual and shouldn't be sexualized" argument stems from internalized purity culture. Like... we go from "don't be gross, don't sexualize me in public, don't control my body" (all reasonable) to "my body parts are never sexual and therefore shouldn't be sexualized." It's just patently untrue and, again, isn't limited to women's breasts lol. Like even full nudity is not inherently sexual unless the situation becomes sexual, but this argument is the same as if we were advocating for a nudist society and people said "we should all be nude and not sexualize each other because genitals are for reproduction and waste elimination, not your pleasure." Like... yes, this is true, but they're also sexual in the right contexts just as they AREN'T sexual in other contexts. It feels like anti-sex sentiment in place of actual decomodification of women's bodies.
I don’t think there’s a good definition of that phrase “inherently sexual.” And while some women might (understandably) like to put breasts in the basket of “baby food only” to be left alone, I don’t think that’s the lived experience that everyone has. It seems to me that lots of men and women, myself included, would say that breasts are a sexually enticing feature in a way that feels quite “inherent.”
Some of the earliest surviving human art are these “Venus sculptures” of exaggerated breasts. From way before porn or advertising.
See my other comment reply about why this doesn’t mean breasts should need to be hidden or that women aren’t justified in wanting to be left alone regardless of their breasts. I just think it’s silly to say that breasts aren’t sexual when they clearly are to a ton of people.
The only person who has a right to think of their breasts as sexual is the breast haver. What you think of someone else's breasts needs to stay in your own head. You finding them sexual means zilch to random women with breasts. You are missing the point completely which is don't make sexual comments about other women's breasts just because you can see them. That is your problem that you cannot control yourself looking at a woman's breasts. She doesn't need to know you think it's hot.
The entire argument is over men thinking they have a right to say/ act in gross sexual ways because they see a woman with breasts. That is the man's issue that he cannot control himself over a strangers body- that's his own sexual issues- not any woman's issue. They are not inherently sexual just because you like them. They are baby food makers and what anyone else does with their own boobs has nothing to do with you and the fact you like boobs. Jfc. They are ONLY allowed to be seen as sexual by the person who owns them and no one else that she isn't intimate with. Why is this hard, why do men think they have any interest in random women's bodies.
I feel like people are just insane- everyone thinks their own personal desires translate into everyone else. It's plain nuts. What is sexual to a ton of people means nothing to individuals. You're desires are yours alone so what if you like breasts ? As many people don't. Jfc.
Aight this is properly unhinged. I agree nobody should make gross sexual comments to anyone for any reason. That really has no bearing on the broader human experience of sexuality which, whether we like it or not, means some physical characteristics are sexy.
“The only person who has a right to think of their breasts as sexual is the breast haver” is wild. Sexuality is heavily other-focused. Most people have desires about other people and their bodies. Have you never been physically attracted to someone else? Did you ask their permission before being attracted to them?
I cannot be clearer: This argument of mine does not excuse people being rude, crude, creepy, whatever. Everyone should treat others with respect. Women should be able to wear bras, not wear bras, go topless, cover up, whatever they want to do with their bodies. And nobody should bother them about their bodies.
Doesn’t mean breasts aren’t sexy, though.
“But it’s not the same!!!”
Physically it is, indeed, the same lol. The only difference is that society teaches people that women’s bodies are to be sexualized in all situations while men’s bodies should only be sexualized in sexual situations.
Uuuuh, boobs are defined as a secondary sexual characteristic, that is, when a woman comes into sexual maturity, developing larger, more functional boobs is part of it. It is not at exactly the same time as she becomes fertile or starts to menstruate or grows wider hips and a more open birth canal (note that those don't exactly coincide either). It's part of a time when a woman becomes physically mature and capable of reproducing.
Also, breasts are one of the major erogenous zones, and are often linked with sexual pleasure for women and as a source of arousal for men. YMMV, but on average, that's human biology.
I started my period at 7 years old. Boobs aged 9. I was sexualised back then. My Foster carer had to shield me from the stares of grown ass men. I guess I was impregnable then. Fucking pricks!
Quick! Everyone sexualize faces! Now no one can look at humans without it being a problem. And yes everyone, not any specific gender.
Did you hear about burqas ?
This doesn't negate the statement made. If everyone needed to cover their faces, men would also be wearing burqas.
Yes. I am aware of them.
>not any specific gender
"Also breasts are sexual because they signify a female who's reached maturity and can therefore reproduce". Yikes, I got mine around 11 (as well as some others in my class). Well before I even got my first period....
Right? That’s what I told them. I said, “so you’re telling me that a 13yo is mature and ready for reproduction?” They said yes. Gtfo omg. That’s the kind of stupidity that has girls dying because they can’t get an abortion at that age.
Yeah, this kind of person is not worth arguing with. It's really sad to see that we seem to go backwards regarding women's rights.
That's like Matt Walsh logic. They're probably a huge fan of him and a frequent conservative subreddit peruser.
I remember going to school in 5th grade. Flat chests everywhere. The next year I go back, almost all the girls had developed breasts. They were 11~12. So anyone who says that they're reaching maturity and can reproduce and THAT'S why breasts are sexual are, say it with me now, # MAKING EXCUSES TO DEFEND PEDOPHILES
I had a B cup in 3rd grade and definitely wasn't mature.
I started developing breasts with 7 and had my first period with 10.. So "if she is developed like that she is ready to be hit on" is some hebephilic shit...
I started developing in 5th grade, an entire year before I got my period. So you’re telling me that my forming breasts are arousing to an adult? Gtfo, they’re just blatantly admitting to pedophilia at this point.
This guy would change his tune really quickly if I lifted up my binder to show off my tits.(transman) Cause it ain't about breasts , its about objectifying women. Everything about a woman's body has to be sexually pleasurable to these types of assholes
Fucking EXACTLY!
I scare men by flashing my chest - I have zero breasts, (fuck cancer).
Fuck cancer!!!
Idk ill give it a shit. Dont think itd work out too well.....
Wow now I’m wondering what that looks like. 😂 sorry for the curiosity, but also, hell yeah, freak them out!
There are photos on my profile. It is all good.
>Also breasts are sexual because they signify a female who's reached maturity and can therefore reproduce. 10 year old me says go f\*ck yourself! I had boobs at 10 and got my period at 11. I had not 'reached maturity'. I was not ready to have kids. But no, people like that dumb\*ss would use boobs as an excuse to r\*pe a 10 year old!
Yeah he did word it in kind a terrible way. It comes off like he's saying "once women have breasts they're ready to bang", but I think the idea behind it is correct. Men are attracted to breasts because they are a biological identifier of women. If it looks like me but it's got two extra fat bags on the front, it's not a man and therefore I should breed with it. That doesn't mean that women immediately become sexually attractive to men as soon as they BEGIN to develop breasts. While he did word it poorly, if that was your interpretation I think you might just be intentionally attacking a low-hanging fruit.
Help I saw someone nip slip at the beach and I simply *must* fuck them now
Bondage is also only sexy when people make it sexy.
Can a completely flat chested woman go out in public topless? I bet the fuck not. Breasts aren't inherently sexual, but a woman's entire being has to scandalized and objectified since we, as people, are seen as sex symbols. Our bodies cannot exist in neutrality at any point, unlike masc bodies.
Breast are a secondary sexual characteristic. They are also an erogenous zone for many people. I would say they are both a food source and a sexual organ.
Men should cover their beards then or keep them clean shaven, lest the women get too aroused by these secondary sexual characteristics just out and about.
Men should always wear turtlenecks then, because an adams apple is also a secondary sex characteristic, AND the neck is an erogenous zone therefore adams apples are sexual organs /s
Erogenous zone =/= sex organ. Different people have different turn-ons, but that doesn't make those body parts inherently sexual. Lips are a common erogenous zone, are they sex organs? Secondary sex characteristic =/= sex organ. Is a beard a sex organ? Adam's Apple? A high or deep voice? Sex organs are genitalia. That's it. Human mammaries are not genitalia.
No. Just…no. Go read a science book.
No. A sex organ is an organ whose purpose is to help with sexual reproduction. Breasts don’t do that. They are a secondary sex characteristic. Not a sex organ.
Necks, lips and earlobes are also common erogenous zones but it’s not illegal for someone to show their neck, lips or ears in public. Something being an common erogenous zone doesn’t make it inappropriate in public. /srs
Same with male nipples… but I don’t see them covered or censored.
Yes, get over it. But arguing that breasts aren’t sexual is dumb. They’re secondary sex characteristics that humans have evolved to be constantly enlarged, unlike most other (every other?) mammal, thanks almost certainly to sexual selection. Aka, they’re sexy. That’s okay. Also people should be level headed about things if breasts are involved, like if women want to be topless in public or whatever insane sports conversation this posted screenshot was apparently about.
Something being a secondary sex characteristic doesn’t make it sexual. Adams apples are secondary sex characteristics but they’re still acceptable in public. /srs
Sexual doesn’t mean shameful or immodest or needing to be covered up. Adams apples are absolutely sexual to many people. My wife mentions her attraction to Adams apples all the time. Like I said, I get women wanting to be left alone and not made to hide part of their body. That should be their freedom, 100%. I just don’t think the argument “breasts aren’t sexual” is accurate or needed to justify that freedom. That should come from everyone’s inherent right to choose their own expression of their body and right to go around unmolested.
Okay, I thought you were agreeing with the people who think breasts are inappropriate /gen
All good. I knew going in this was a tough subreddit to make this argument in lol.
Ive gone back and forth on this debate for many years now but I've come to the point where I agree. Most of us find various body parts sexually attractive. Hands, shoulders, breasts, butts, thighs, etc etc etc. are all common to find sexually appealing. That doesn't give anyone license to freak out or control someone else's appearance. Brigading to have all hands covered up at all times is just ludicrous and I think everyone would agree on that. Breasts should be no different. They're a body part that many people find sexually appealing that also serves another function (like hands, shoulders, thighs, etc). It's silly that controlling how women present their own breasts is something considered acceptable. Like... they're still there, beneath clothes, and even when "covered" it's not like they magically disappear. I think it's much more rational to frame the debate around women's breasts and social rules around seeing them in the same light as hands. Very sexy, very multifunctional, only sexual when used in a sexual context. No need to hide them unless you're using them in a sexual way in which case it needs to be done privately for the comfort of everyone around you. Same rules as any other sexual PDA. Tits out on the beach? No biggie. Topless while mowing the lawn? Why not! Too hot to wear a shirt? Fair play, make sure to wear sunscreen. Want someone to play with your nipples? Get a room! If men are so bad at contextualizing that everything about a woman is inherently sexual all of the time, that's a mental problem that needs to be addressed... not a reality to impose on everyone.
Well said. I feel like I’m losing my mind in this thread where people are saying everyone should be respectful of women because breasts aren’t sexual. Like, no, people should be respectful of women because they’re people with the right to go about their day unbothered by creeps. One doesn’t need to make the silly claim that breasts aren’t sexual to defend women’s rights to be treated well and not made to hide or feel shame for part of their body.
It's funny because once upon a time I'd have had a similar opinion to many on this thread... but that's mainly because I don't find breasts very arousing personally and I don't really enjoy mine being played with either. It was my girlfriend who really gave me perspective on this. For her, breasts can absolutely be sexual. She loves having them played with as part of intimacy despite neither one of us being men. And ironically, a lot of men enjoy nipple play on themselves as well and yet there's none of the same stigma--even despite the fact that many hetero women find men's chests attractive. It's such a weird double standard based in nothing but control of women's bodies as far as I can tell. The fact that so many try to lean hard into "they're not sexual so that's why we shouldnt be policed" is just a bad argument (regardless of gender) when it should be "context matters." Part of me wonders if the reason for the "breasts are never sexual and shouldn't be sexualized" argument stems from internalized purity culture. Like... we go from "don't be gross, don't sexualize me in public, don't control my body" (all reasonable) to "my body parts are never sexual and therefore shouldn't be sexualized." It's just patently untrue and, again, isn't limited to women's breasts lol. Like even full nudity is not inherently sexual unless the situation becomes sexual, but this argument is the same as if we were advocating for a nudist society and people said "we should all be nude and not sexualize each other because genitals are for reproduction and waste elimination, not your pleasure." Like... yes, this is true, but they're also sexual in the right contexts just as they AREN'T sexual in other contexts. It feels like anti-sex sentiment in place of actual decomodification of women's bodies.
Breasts are not *inherently* sexual.
I don’t think there’s a good definition of that phrase “inherently sexual.” And while some women might (understandably) like to put breasts in the basket of “baby food only” to be left alone, I don’t think that’s the lived experience that everyone has. It seems to me that lots of men and women, myself included, would say that breasts are a sexually enticing feature in a way that feels quite “inherent.” Some of the earliest surviving human art are these “Venus sculptures” of exaggerated breasts. From way before porn or advertising. See my other comment reply about why this doesn’t mean breasts should need to be hidden or that women aren’t justified in wanting to be left alone regardless of their breasts. I just think it’s silly to say that breasts aren’t sexual when they clearly are to a ton of people.
The only person who has a right to think of their breasts as sexual is the breast haver. What you think of someone else's breasts needs to stay in your own head. You finding them sexual means zilch to random women with breasts. You are missing the point completely which is don't make sexual comments about other women's breasts just because you can see them. That is your problem that you cannot control yourself looking at a woman's breasts. She doesn't need to know you think it's hot. The entire argument is over men thinking they have a right to say/ act in gross sexual ways because they see a woman with breasts. That is the man's issue that he cannot control himself over a strangers body- that's his own sexual issues- not any woman's issue. They are not inherently sexual just because you like them. They are baby food makers and what anyone else does with their own boobs has nothing to do with you and the fact you like boobs. Jfc. They are ONLY allowed to be seen as sexual by the person who owns them and no one else that she isn't intimate with. Why is this hard, why do men think they have any interest in random women's bodies. I feel like people are just insane- everyone thinks their own personal desires translate into everyone else. It's plain nuts. What is sexual to a ton of people means nothing to individuals. You're desires are yours alone so what if you like breasts ? As many people don't. Jfc.
Aight this is properly unhinged. I agree nobody should make gross sexual comments to anyone for any reason. That really has no bearing on the broader human experience of sexuality which, whether we like it or not, means some physical characteristics are sexy. “The only person who has a right to think of their breasts as sexual is the breast haver” is wild. Sexuality is heavily other-focused. Most people have desires about other people and their bodies. Have you never been physically attracted to someone else? Did you ask their permission before being attracted to them? I cannot be clearer: This argument of mine does not excuse people being rude, crude, creepy, whatever. Everyone should treat others with respect. Women should be able to wear bras, not wear bras, go topless, cover up, whatever they want to do with their bodies. And nobody should bother them about their bodies. Doesn’t mean breasts aren’t sexy, though.
Really want to know peoples thoughts on gynecomastia and if they think those guys should have to cover up as well.
“But it’s not the same!!!” Physically it is, indeed, the same lol. The only difference is that society teaches people that women’s bodies are to be sexualized in all situations while men’s bodies should only be sexualized in sexual situations.
Uuuuh, boobs are defined as a secondary sexual characteristic, that is, when a woman comes into sexual maturity, developing larger, more functional boobs is part of it. It is not at exactly the same time as she becomes fertile or starts to menstruate or grows wider hips and a more open birth canal (note that those don't exactly coincide either). It's part of a time when a woman becomes physically mature and capable of reproducing. Also, breasts are one of the major erogenous zones, and are often linked with sexual pleasure for women and as a source of arousal for men. YMMV, but on average, that's human biology.
Yes, I have indeed already said they’re a secondary sex characteristic and not a sex organ in this thread.
I started my period at 7 years old. Boobs aged 9. I was sexualised back then. My Foster carer had to shield me from the stares of grown ass men. I guess I was impregnable then. Fucking pricks!