"Explain why women have to cover up their chests, but not men.... The only excitement that comes from seeing breasts is that you are conditioned to think they are something special...."Of course, thinking you're seeing naked breasts, having to figure out what you're looking at, and deciding what to think about it is only going to make you look longer.
२६ जून, २०१४
A bikini top printed to look like naked breasts.
2 women are promoting this as part of their campaign to "de-sexualize" breasts.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
How silly, and sexist of them, to deny male sexuality exists.
Female breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, ladies.
Deal with it.
Impossible. Can't be done. Desexualizing breasts, I mean.
The only excitement that comes from seeing breasts is that you are conditioned to think they are something special...."
Yes, like I've been 'conditioned' to breathe.
What? No equal time for the vagina?
After all those monologues, too!
Breasts would desexualize very fast if toplessness were common.
The feminine operation is concealing that nothing is being concealed.
It's all veils.
Basically what you have in the end is your wife with no clothes on, otherwise.
A guy at work, long long ago, when NYC toplessness came up, said that there are women who can go topless, and women who can't, and the latter aren't going to let the former do it.
He was wrong about the sustained sexuality of it, however.
What you're selling, in the brassiere business, is shape, somebody said. Also feigned concealment, the feminine aspect.
Jesus f*****g Christ. Again.
And then, while you're talking to her, completely surprised she says, "My eyes are up here!"
I'll believe the sexes are truly equal when men go into business of desexualizing the penis.
That settles it...I'm makin' Junk Shorts...follow me?
They are something special. Functionally they are part of the female biological difference. Aesthetically they are part of the female visual allure. It will be a gray day for humanity when men and women lose their lust for each other.
The Lord s/h given breasts to men.
They seem to appreciate them so much more than women.
Falsie advertising?
All because the obstetrician declared them female.
Chapter 6,329 in the the Book of Women Having it Both Ways.
If these ladies want to "de-sexualize" breasts, they could start by critiquing their fellow women who pay big money for size D breast implants.
Why would a woman want huge breasts if not for the fact that she imagines that men will lust after her more if she looks like she's wearing two cantaloupes under her clothing?
Women seeks attention, tries to be 'edgy'.
Saw the opposite sold in a multitude of places in Italy last month. No I didn't buy any.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=michelangelo+underwear&go=Submit+Query&qs=bs&form=QBIR#view=detail&id=A5742D0A52552BCCD11E393AB7721440694855F1&selectedIndex=6
Even if you could, why? Is sex bad now? Is deriving sexual pleasure from breasts bad? I don't understand.
I spent two weeks at Club Med. All the French women and --after the first week--many of the American women went topless. There are some breasts which are almost impossible to desexualize but they do lose some of their velocity after a while.....,Boticelli's Venus is not covering her hot spots with her hands but rather drawing attention to them. It's easier to eroticize the body with clothes than with nudity. If the fabric of the garment in question were see through would that subvert or enhance the purpose of the garment?
It's not naked female breasts that are considered dangerous and so outlawed, it is random, unrestrained erections.
More evidence, as if any was needed, that feminists are profoundly stupid.
Young male Weightlifters doing sets of inverted pullovers with 145 lbs and bench presses with 225 lbs over a few years time develop massive breasts. It's just that our nipples didn't keep up.
That said, God created Eve's breasts to excite Adam, and He did a fine job of it, better than human sports car designers could match, although they sell bras for cars now.
We male mammals salute them all.
I have a friend that is a Plastic surgeon. He reconstructs breasts from accidents and cancer surgery. He also does volunteer cleft palette repairs.
His income from cosmetic breast augmentations fell way off after the 2008 crash, since those are elective uninsured expenses. But he had always made the majority of his money from accident work repairing faces for insurance cases. So his practice did not go under as many others did.
Implants are more to outdo other women than impress men.
Of course, the irony is that many (most?) women highly sexually the male torso.
Beyond that, we all sexualize the entire body of the sex to which we are attracted. We are sexual beings, why destroy that?
"The only excitement that comes from seeing breasts is that you are conditioned to think they are something special...."
These chicks don't know nothing.
Its hard (so to speak) to think of anything more instinctual -and more natural- than the average male's response to a pulchritudinous woman's bare body. They could sell a lot of bathing suits, nonetheless, despite their misconceptualization.
Boobs are boobs. Been there since man (and woman) learned to walk on two legs.
Trying to "de-sexualize" breasts is like trying to do the same to a woman's backside (buns that is.)
We are hardwired to look at them. Part of our DNA and if we didn't have that hardwireing then I doubt we would engage in enough sex to keep the species going.
Ankles have been de-sexualized. Same could happen to boobs.
If the goal is to Desexualizing breasts, totally doing it wrong. Instead of selling them to hot girls, might look into the grandmother market.
2 women are promoting this as part of their campaign to "de-sexualize" breasts.
Doesn't this conflict with the equally silly campaign to convince us that women are as intelligent as men?
I've noticed that in countries where breasts are de-sexualized, they tend to look like yams and plantains.
down the slippery slope we go
The only excitement that comes from seeing breasts is that you are conditioned to think they are something special.
Speaks for itself, and so much for that.
Of course, thinking you're seeing naked breasts, having to figure out what you're looking at, and deciding what to think about it is only going to make you look longer.
EXACTLY!
Can I bring up the obvious point that everyone else has been missing here? There is a "Patent Pending" statement on the website selling these tops. What is patentable about this? I would think you could TRADEMARK a design mimicking the naked breast, but, unless it involves some new kind of dye or fabric or process, it seems to be a normal bikini top. Patent law isn't broken, it just the stupid people applying for and approving patents that are.
"Explain why women have to cover up their chests, but not men.... "
No - do your research. That's why it's yours. But I can tell you this much:
Keep appearing naked in front of guys and you'll find out,...
Won't the day be great when the last man takes to the grave the horrific rapey memory of the first warm tit in his hand?
Have they done the bottoms yet?
Why would we want to de-sexualize the breasts? I rather like mine to be considered something special (by my husband, at least).
It ain't gonna work.
It's the kind of packaging that makes want to see what's inside.
Yay tits.
Am I the only one who had trouble parsing "thetatatop" -- I kept seeing the first bit as "theta".
My stumbling point with this "logic" is always the apparent belief that straight women and gay men take no sexual pleasure in seeing a male model going shirtless.
Impossible. Can't be done. Desexualizing breasts, I mean.
Aw, c'mon. In certain parts of the world, women don't conceal their breasts, and the men - or the lesbians in the tribe - probably get used to it.
Of course, breasts begin to point straight down sooner than here, since without bras the Cooper ligament (which suppports the breasts) gets stretchy much quicker, resulting in super duper Cooper droopers.
This movement seeks to deny biological realities.
And men should always refuse to let any women define their sexuality and what men consider sexual.
Am I the only one who had trouble parsing "thetatatop"
No, you are not. I do the same thing.
Two women are using a goofy slogan to market sexualized bikinis and make some money.
They've got it backwards. They think that we regard breasts as special because they are usually hidden. In fact, breats are usually kept hidden because we (both men and women) think they are something special. This is known as "modesty" a concept that seems close to extinction today.
Lionheart,
I dunno. I don't think anyone really got excited at watching a young lady sensually rubbing oil over her ankles with her french manicured hands...(except for some foot fetish people)
The whole ankle thing was simply upper class women getting the jitters over the style of clothing worn by the prostitutes their husbands were banging
I think that the solution to partially desexualizing breasts is to have a lot of older well busted women go topless. That might do it.
I remember the first time I saw a pair of extra large ones up close. The woman was only in her early 40s, but had had 3 kids, and they really had sagged to her waist. It did reduce my ardor a bit. One friend got a breast reduction in her late 50s down to maybe a DD, partially for this reason, and partially because of the strain they put on her back.
Question for the women and maybe doctors here. The 50-60 year old women I know with D/DD or bigger breasts seem to all have back problems as a result. But, wearing a bra, even to bed, seems to help keep at least the D/DD from sagging quite as much. Is wearing a bra though over so many decades the problem, or is it the actual weight of the breasts? Would they have as bad back problems if they had not worn such over the decades, and let nature take its course?
Keep in mind that women's breasts are the size they are because they are a sexual lure. Our closest genetic relatives have much smaller breasts, and nurse just fine. One theory is that their rounded shape was used to move male attention from the rear buttocks to the front, when humans started to walk upright all the time, as the orientation of the vagina also moved forward, facilitating frontal coitus.
This pairs nicely with your post on the horrors of infant gender assignment -- both treat social construction as not really real and easily changed.
In fact, mountains can be leveled more easily than a social fact can change.
This also reminds me of the only actually funny Dennis the Menace cartoon I've every seen. Dennis and a friend are holding some puppies. Dennis is saying to his friend, "My Dad can tell if they're boys or girls just be holding them up and looking at their paws."
So can the doctor, Dennis. So can the doctor.
Editor's note: NBCChicago.com is sensitive to the nature of this content. We're featuring this fashion as part of our Inc.Well business coverage. Though the photos below do not show actual nudity, please keep in mind the photos may not be suitable for everyone.
So pathetic.
@Bruce
I've blogged a couple times about the correlation between wearing a bra and having breasts sag.
Bras weaken the tissue that supports breasts. Bralessness is good for avoiding sagging.
Women are allowed by law to go topless in Texas.
It's one if the reasons conservatives acted in concert to oust the liberals from the Texas Supreme Court. That law remains as a vestige of the liberal court.
Personally, it's ok with me. I like breasts. Sadly women are not taking advantage of their newfound freedom.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा