#Freethenipple

biostud · Mar 31, 2015

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...solidarity-with-trolled-student-10136238.html

That should keep you occupied for some time.

SlitheryDee · Mar 31, 2015

I love the new feminist movement. Men oppress women. Women show their solidarity by showing their tits. One could almost think it was men behind it from the start.

CraKaJaX · Mar 31, 2015

I'm going to assume this is NSFW

Must...wait...!

biostud · Mar 31, 2015

CraKaJaX said:
I'm going to assume this is NSFW

Must...wait...!

The article I linked to is not NSFW. What you do after reading it, is an entirely other matter.

Krazy4Real · Mar 31, 2015

biostud said:
The article I linked to is not NSFW. What you do after reading it, is an entirely other matter.

Some of the twitter images embedded in the article are NSFW.

CraKaJaX · Mar 31, 2015

biostud said:
The article I linked to is not NSFW. What you do after reading it, is an entirely other matter.

:sneaky:

mmntech · Mar 31, 2015

The movement first emerged as a protest against women’s chests being only regarded as sexual objects, in a way that men’s are not.

Umm, okay honey. Tell me again how women don't drool over muscular shirtless guys at the gym.

SlitheryDee · Mar 31, 2015

mmntech said:
Umm, okay honey. Tell me again how women don't drool over muscular shirtless guys at the gym.

Of course they do. It makes a kind of evolutionary sense if you think about it. Any given gender is going to fixate on the differences between genders as sources of arousal. Breasts aren't inherently sexier than lack of breasts. One gender is wired to be aroused by breasts while the other is wired to be aroused by the lack of them. One gender is wired to find slender body profiles with swells at the hips arousing, while the other is wired to find a V-shaped profile that is wide at the shoulders and narrow at the hips arousing. It isn't that either one is inherently sexy so much as we have to be aroused by the things that make genders different whatever they may be. It would just be hard to make us bang each other if that wasn't so. It doesn't really matter what the differences are either. If every woman had a hole in her face instead of a nose we'd be having this conversation about face holes instead of breasts. Like it or not, women have breasts and (most) men don't. That irrevocably marks them as a source of arousal for men, and rightly so.

Smoblikat · Mar 31, 2015

SlitheryDee said:
Of course they do. It makes a kind of evolutionary sense if you think about it. Any given gender is going to fixate on the differences between genders as sources of arousal. Breasts aren't inherently sexier than lack of breasts. One gender is wired to be aroused by breasts while the other is wired to be aroused by the lack of them. One gender is wired to find slender body profiles with swells at the hips arousing, while the other is wired to find a V-shaped profile that is wide at the shoulders and narrow at the hips arousing. It isn't that either one is inherently sexy so much as we have to be aroused by the things that make genders different whatever they may be. It would just be hard to make us bang each other if that wasn't so. It doesn't really matter what the differences are either. If every woman had a hole in her face instead of a nose we'd be having this conversation about face holes instead of breasts. Like it or not, women have breasts and (most) men don't. That irrevocably marks them as a source of arousal for men, and rightly so.

Ya I like tits too.

dank69 · Mar 31, 2015

biostud said:
The article I linked to is not NSFW. What you do after reading it, is an entirely other matter.

Bare tits don't qualify as NSFW?

positivedoppler · Mar 31, 2015

I never understood the female tits being censored to begin with. It does look unusually(not exactly sexy) if a woman is moving around with her breast all flopping around. Way hotter when they jiggle with a bra or swimsuit on.

I'm all for getting rid of this ridiculous unfair law. It should be up to the woman how proper they want to appear in public.

s0me0nesmind1 · Mar 31, 2015

ITT: Article of women getting butt-hurt on the male natural arousal. More news at 10.

Women can be such toolbags it's hilarious. Someone has to fill the cum-dumpsters.

manimal · Mar 31, 2015

I grew up in south america and europe. Saw lots of titties at the beach and on the streets. Americuh is the big titty free zone.

Well the burka places dont like titties either though

SlitheryDee · Mar 31, 2015

s0me0nesmind1 said:
ITT: Article of women getting butt-hurt on the male natural arousal. More news at 10.

Women can be such toolbags it's hilarious. Someone has to fill the cum-dumpsters.

Even so, they still have a point. We're assuming that a man's chest (when he's in shape) is also arousing to a woman. If the criteria is "things that are arousing should not be revealed in public" then men should have to wear shirts too. Either that or both should be allowed to go shirtless. I'm always going to be in favor of consistency in our rules. I'd prefer everyone to be allowed to go shirtless for obvious reasons.

I recall a thread a year or so ago about new york allowing the nipples to be free. We haven't heard much about it since then though. I wonder if many women are taking advantage of their new-found liberation there.

Smoblikat · Mar 31, 2015

As much as im a horny young male, I do think women should be able to walk around topless for more than the obvious reasons. Men are able to walk around without shirts and nonody has burst into flames yet, it doesnt make sense to "criminalize" the human body.

s0me0nesmind1 · Mar 31, 2015

SlitheryDee said:
Even so, they still have a point. We're assuming that a man's chest (when he's in shape) is also arousing to a woman. If the criteria is "things that are arousing should not be revealed in public" then men should have to wear shirts too. Either that or both should be allowed to go shirtless. I'm always going to be in favor of consistency in our rules. I'd prefer everyone to be allowed to go shirtless for obvious reasons.

I recall a thread a year or so ago about new york allowing the nipples to be free. We haven't heard much about it since then though. I wonder if many women are taking advantage of their new-found liberation there.

And I say fine, go have a nutsack ol' time walking around topless. I could give 2 shits less.

IIRC it's legal to do so in New York. So have a ball. The fact that society doesn't yet accept it isn't the fault of the law. Protesting over it is childish and just makes my eyes take liftoff into outer space.

fake edit: Yes it is legal: http://www.answers.com/Q/Is_it_legal_to_walk_around_New_York_City_topless

biostud · Mar 31, 2015

positivedoppler said:
I never understood the female tits being censored to begin with. It does look unusually(not exactly sexy) if a woman is moving around with her breast all flopping around. Way hotter when they jiggle with a bra or swimsuit on.

I'm all for getting rid of this ridiculous unfair law. It should be up to the woman how proper they want to appear in public.

It's because it is forbidden it is interesting..... at least that plays a role in it

destrekor · Mar 31, 2015

SlitheryDee said:
Of course they do. It makes a kind of evolutionary sense if you think about it. Any given gender is going to fixate on the differences between genders as sources of arousal. Breasts aren't inherently sexier than lack of breasts. One gender is wired to be aroused by breasts while the other is wired to be aroused by the lack of them. One gender is wired to find slender body profiles with swells at the hips arousing, while the other is wired to find a V-shaped profile that is wide at the shoulders and narrow at the hips arousing. It isn't that either one is inherently sexy so much as we have to be aroused by the things that make genders different whatever they may be. It would just be hard to make us bang each other if that wasn't so. It doesn't really matter what the differences are either. If every woman had a hole in her face instead of a nose we'd be having this conversation about face holes instead of breasts. Like it or not, women have breasts and (most) men don't. That irrevocably marks them as a source of arousal for men, and rightly so.

Women aren't aroused by the lack of breasts, or else they'd fawn over any shirtless man, which I assure you, many do not.

What does excite women is the presence of defined pectoral muscles, among other things. They don't look for "no breasts", they look for signs of strength, which may make for better offspring and a better protector (whether their conscious mind opposes such an idea or not)
Men prefer to look for signs of softness, in most cases, signs of some sort of supple quality, which genetically makes for a potentially better mate for healthier offspring.

Kadarin · Mar 31, 2015

dank69 said:
Bare tits don't qualify as NSFW?

The point that these activists are making is that they shouldn't.

Rakehellion · Mar 31, 2015

How is Iceland's movement different from the regular #FreeTheNipple?

Exterous · Mar 31, 2015

declared today 'Free the Nipple' day

Aww...why couldn't they do that on Friday when I will be there

SlitheryDee said:
I love the new feminist movement. Men oppress women. Women show their solidarity by showing their tits. One could almost think it was men behind it from the start.

Hey - We agreed to never talk about The Plan!

SlitheryDee · Mar 31, 2015

destrekor said:
Women aren't aroused by the lack of breasts, or else they'd fawn over any shirtless man, which I assure you, many do not.

I'm not trying to say that lack of breasts is the only criteria. For most women it is the standard. A man has to not have breasts just to get to zero on their scale of attractiveness. Otherwise he's working from negative numbers. There's an idealized version of the male chest which can get him into positive numbers too, and it isn't necessarily the direct "opposite" to breasts

What does excite women is the presence of defined pectoral muscles, among other things. They don't look for "no breasts", they look for signs of strength, which may make for better offspring and a better protector (whether their conscious mind opposes such an idea or not)

Well they aren't looking for "no breasts" any more than you look for a woman with breasts. Your unconscious expectation is that they'll have them, as is their expectation that you will not. In a world where a lot of men had breasts but women's attractions were unchanged, they'd most certainly be looking for "no breasts". Conscious expectations notwithstanding, they factor in to your attraction. They form a baseline from which everything else arises. First you are established to not have breasts. Only after that are you evaluated for the individual quality of your chest vs that of other males. It's an assumption that is so basic that you may not even be aware that you are making it.

dank69 · Mar 31, 2015

Kadarin said:
The point that these activists are making is that they shouldn't.

What does that have to do with AT forum rules?

destrekor · Mar 31, 2015

SlitheryDee said:
I'm not trying to say that lack of breasts is the only criteria. For most women it is the standard. A man has to not have breasts just to get to zero on their scale of attractiveness. Otherwise he's working from negative numbers. There's an idealized version of the male chest which can get him into positive numbers too, and it isn't necessarily the direct "opposite" to breasts

Well they aren't looking for "no breasts" any more than you look for a woman with breasts. Your unconscious expectation is that they'll have them, as is their expectation that you will not. In a world where a lot of men had breasts but women's attractions were unchanged, they'd most certainly be looking for "no breasts". Conscious expectations notwithstanding, they factor in to your attraction. They form a baseline from which everything else arises. First you are established to not have breasts. Only after that are you evaluated for the individual quality of your chest vs that of other males. It's an assumption that is so basic that you may not even be aware that you are making it.

I see where your coming from now. Yes, women definitely would give an unconscious negative rating to a man with moobs, although they get lovin' somehow, but as I like to say, the exceptions prove the rule.

Brian Stirling · Mar 31, 2015

SlitheryDee said:
Of course they do. It makes a kind of evolutionary sense if you think about it. Any given gender is going to fixate on the differences between genders as sources of arousal. Breasts aren't inherently sexier than lack of breasts. One gender is wired to be aroused by breasts while the other is wired to be aroused by the lack of them. One gender is wired to find slender body profiles with swells at the hips arousing, while the other is wired to find a V-shaped profile that is wide at the shoulders and narrow at the hips arousing. It isn't that either one is inherently sexy so much as we have to be aroused by the things that make genders different whatever they may be. It would just be hard to make us bang each other if that wasn't so. It doesn't really matter what the differences are either. If every woman had a hole in her face instead of a nose we'd be having this conversation about face holes instead of breasts. Like it or not, women have breasts and (most) men don't. That irrevocably marks them as a source of arousal for men, and rightly so.

Except that women are at least as fixated on breasts as men are -- maybe more so. Many/most women enjoy looking at pretty women and appreciate a nice rack just as men do.

Brian

#Freethenipple

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Golden Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Lifer

Diamond Member