Full nudity, why so few guy parts? (Warning - very frank discussion)

Discussion in 'Entertainment' started by GingerCoffee, Sep 23, 2013.

  1. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,385
    Likes Received:
    7,080
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I have no problem agreeing to disagree. And I've found the different points of view in the discussion interesting. So I hope you won't take this wrong, but your answer to my post seems to have sidestepped my question instead of answering it.

    I think I understand your reasoning that breasts aren't needed for reproduction or sex. Surely a woman post a bilateral mastectomy is no less of a sexual being than she was before.

    But how are you defining, "needed for reproduction or sex"? Because we could easily put a number of things in the "not needed" category that you have decided to include, such as foreskin and clitoris, and left some off the list that are absolutely essential, such as the pituitary gland.

    And what about redundant organs, if one only needs one ovary or one testicle, I don't think you'd argue only one of the two should be included, would you? So your criteria, "needed for reproduction or sex" cannot be absolute.

    If breasts are not a reproductive organ, what are they then?
     
    Archias likes this.
  2. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,385
    Likes Received:
    7,080
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Deleted, I hit reply when I meant to hit edit.
     
  3. katreya

    katreya Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    South Pacific
    *edit* sorry, I read 2 pages and did not realise there was a further 6! Sorry if I missed half the conversation.

    I just saw this thread and thought I'd have a look - I knew it would have GoT in it somewhere! Ha! I have (more or less) a similar opinion - that it's generally 'less' offensive to see a naked woman, than a naked man, and that probably stems from the fact that a lady's actual 'parts' are a lot more hidden, and society has made breasts so commonly objectified that they're no shocker to see. I don't like seeing nudity at all, to be honest, or sex scenes whatsoever - I always fast forward or skip the entire chapter (and usually have to rewind through 10 minute of actual plot), but it would seem a lot worse if there were man-parts on display too.

    I would say that SOME women's bodies are more beautiful. Not all. I saw a film about Amish where the lady stripped down, and to be honest, it was a little bit gross because she wasn't what you would call aesthetically pretty - so does it boil down to what the actor thinks of their body? I think it does. I really mean no offence to said above actor, and in no way am I insinuating you have to meet certain standards in any way shape or form, but there are better looking females, and better looking males, on both sides of the spectrum.

    I find sex scenes in movies and shows unnecessary, TBH. I'd prefer they left it at the kissing and maybe canoodling, but left the act itself untouched and just faded out. Some of the most hard-hitting "sex" scenes I saw showed absolutely no nudity, like the rape scene from an NZ movie called "Once Were Warriors". That was disturbing enough.

    I hope I didn't get too side-tracked... but yeah, I think it's "shock value" and society's norm. You see men's upper bodies, and women's, everywhere - their ACTUAL bits and pieces??? Not so much...
     
  4. Archias

    Archias Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Way on Down the Line
    Evolution teaches us that the single, overwhelming goal for a species is to reproduce and pass on genetic material further and further down the evolutionary scale. Every species if life must transfer its genetic code to successive generations.

    Evolution causes mutations that make reproduction more efficient. Breasts are one of those incidents.

    Nature, by way I evolution, caused human females to develop breasts in order to make reproduction more efficient and have a higher rate of success.

    I think you would agree that from an evolutionary standpoint, a species has sex for the purpose of creating another sexually mature member of the species so that they, in turn, can have sex and create another and so on and so forth...

    Breasts absolutely function to make reproduction more efficient.

    Again, they serve no other biological purpose.
     
  5. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I'm responding in the spirit of a comparison of points of view. I am trusting that we'll continue in that vein and avoid snark.

    So. It's an "I know it when I see it" definition, and so far most of the websites that I Google seem to agree with me.

    This discussion keeps conflating "sexual" and "reproductive", and I wouldn't agree that those are identical. In a purely functional sense, I would say that "sexual" is a subset of "reproductive". In a social sense, I would say that thet're two intersecting sets. I'm going to go with the purely functional sense.

    To me, "sexual" is about getting the sperm and egg together. Or the stigma and the pollen, or whatever the male and female genetic contributors are, depending on what life form we're talking about. And in fact, plants are relevant to this in my mind, because plants have both sexual and non-sexual reproduction. "Sexual" requires male and female contributions, and the closer you are to the meeting of those contributions, the more likely I am to call something sexual.

    The foreskin, etc., are not essential for the meeting of the male/female contributions, but they are very closely associated with it and they have no other function. (Unlike the pituitary glands, heart, lungs, etc., all of which are essential but have other functions.) Therefore I call them sexual organs, on, again, "I know it when I see it" grounds.

    Breasts are not essential for the meeting of the male and female contributions, and they don't provide the home that supports the product of that meeting, and they're not directly and closely associated with the organs involved in that meeting, the way that the foreskin is. Yes, I remember what you said about oxytocin and fertility and I can see that you could argue that they aid in the success of that meeting. I think I understand that argument. I do not accept it as sufficient. I consider breasts to have reproductive significance, not sexual significance.

    So that moves us on to reproductive organs. Breasts are not essential to reproduction; reproduction is complete before they come into play. But they exist for the benefit of the product of that reproduction--the baby. Breastfeeding also has various non-essential benefits to the mother--useful uterine contractions, etc. They are not primary reproductive organs, they are not sexual organs, but I accept them as part of the reproductive system.

    Again, my entry into this debate was about "sexual organs on their chests". They're not sexual organs. That's my main point.
     
  6. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,385
    Likes Received:
    7,080
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    OK, boiling that down, "[breasts] exist for the benefit of the product of that reproduction--the baby."

    If sexual attraction and stimulation played no role in reproduction, I might accept that POV.

    Are you aware that vaginal contractions assist in moving the sperm into the cervix? Nipple stimulation directly affects vaginal contractions. And I've already noted it stimulates the release of oxytocin. With that in mind, consider the following:

    Sperm transport in the human female genital tract and its modulation by oxytocin as assessed by hysterosalpingoscintigraphy, hysterotonography, electrohysterography and Doppler sonography
    (see my bolded part)
    Human physiology is an evolutionarily complex thing. Who would have thought that oxytocin released with nipple stimulation at the time of ovulation, creates conditions that not only assist in moving the sperm through the uterus into the fallopian tube, but also results in the sperm predominantly moving into the fallopian tube of the ovary that has released the egg.

    I don't know about you, but I find it fascinating that the sexual pleasure of nipple stimulation has an actual role in assuring the sperm finds the egg.

    As for the web sites not including this more complex biological view of the reproductive organs, that doesn't surprise me.
     
  7. Archias

    Archias Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Way on Down the Line
    I think the disagreement is strictly over definitions, but I am glad you have conceded that the breasts are a part of the human reproductive cycle.

    As far as breasts as a sexual organ, there is science out there that suggests a link between breasts and sex.

    According to a new study, the sensation from the nipples travels to the same part of the brain as sensations from the vagina, clitoris and cervix.

    So while you can argue that the breasts may not fall under the definition of 'sexual organ', most scientific data points to them being a part of the human sexual experience.
     
  8. thewordsmith

    thewordsmith Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    You know, JJ, it is not really necessary to insult people just because you disagree with them. To call someone "...completely illiterate" is really uncalled for (especially given the typos in some of your own posts here). I think all anyone here is asking is a bit of discretionary diplomacy. Bear in mind, many years ago, "learned" men declared the world flat. It took someone (not Columbus though he did set the ball rolling, so to speak) disagreeing with the norm to prove otherwise. And scientists have made similar theoretical absolute declarations throughout the ages - countless times in the 20th century, in fact - only to have later counterparts 'prove' the error of the earlier beliefs.

    What we, as a whole, do not know, weighed against what there is to be known, is miniscule and it would behoove us all to remember that we are, indeed, fallible and so, to guard against looking like complete fools and embarrassing ourselves, we should refrain from calling others for a fool.

    In other words, we should not be insulting others just because their opinions differ from our own. In the end, THEY might be the ones proven right!

    Just sayin'...
     
  9. thewordsmith

    thewordsmith Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    This is classified as an erogenous zone and I think most people would agree.
     
  10. Burlbird

    Burlbird Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    294
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    @Archias blowjobs are also part of human sexual experience : is that enough to consider lips and tongue as parts of reproductive system?
     
  11. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,385
    Likes Received:
    7,080
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    No, no more than fingers are. But that doesn't negate the stimulated side of the acts being part of the system.
     
  12. thewordsmith

    thewordsmith Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    Just for the record, only men seem to equate size with effectiveness. Ask any woman you know if she would rather have a 'foot long hot dog' with no skill or a smaller package that can make them beg for more. You think she's gonna take size over skill? NOT!
     
  13. T.Trian

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    Or how about the heart? It'd be pretty difficult to get a boner without one. Lungs also help; I know some swear by holding your breath during the big O, but imagine holding your breath for 10-30 minutes, all the while banging away in an act that has most people panting. That'd be uncomfortable, so breathing definitely helps increase pleasure, meaning lungs, too? Also, fucking without your skin might be a bit uncomfortable, and since the skin is the largest organ and gets fondled a lot during sex...
    That being said, isn't almost everything a part of the act one way or another?


    Ask any woman whether she wants a skilled guy with a two-incher or a skilled guy with the aforementioned hot dog and many would choose the latter.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2013
  14. thewordsmith

    thewordsmith Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    If I do nothing else today, let me educate everyone reading this on this one little bit of information.
    Just to be perfectly clear, men DO have breasts! About eleven percent of men will develop breast cancer. That's less than one percent of all breast cancer cases but let me repeat this. ELEVEN PERCENT OF MEN WILL DEVELOP BREAST CANCER!!! So, if you notice a hard knot or asymmetrical development of your pecs, don't ignore it. Go see a doctor! Of all of the statistics you could be a part of, male breast cancer patient is not one of them.
     
  15. thewordsmith

    thewordsmith Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    At that point, would it really matter? I seriously doubt it. 'Many' may, indeed, choose the latter if they had not experienced either 'offering'. All other things being equal, however, if she has found extreme pleasure with both, I'm guessing it all comes down to the man himself and not the organ. Isn't the gratification the objective here? That being the case, size really doesn't matter. It is only the male ego that equates size with sexual prowess.

    Remember "When Harry Met Sally"? Women can fake orgasm. No they can't. Yes they can.
    "I'll have what she's having."

    She may moan for his pleasure and then afterwards tell her bff what a dud he is in bed. And, if she's a good actress, he thinks he's the world's greatest lover but the only one he's pleasing - and fooling - is himself.
     
  16. T.Trian

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    I don't really get your point about women faking pleasure; everyone knows they do it when they feel like they have to. :confused:

    Not sure if this veers ot, but what the hell: of course many women would choose the otherwise perfect guy with a small dick over the asshole with a big one (or the perfect guy over the less perfect guy), but that's hardly 'all things being equal.'
    If all else is truly equal, which would they choose? A hypothetical, if unrealistic scenario: creator X tells women that each can get their perfect guy just by filling in a questionnaire. Which box would be checked more often, 'small dick' or 'large dick'?

    Coming down to Earth for a moment, it's not like most women can choose a guy by the size of his johnson when they first get to know him unless the guy hangs out at clubs/pubs/parties/wherever naked, but my guess would be that many would be pleasantly surprised if the guy they like turned out to be well hung (and great in bed, charming, handsome, loving, caring, all that jazz).
    Then again, being a guy, naturally all I have is second-hand info on the matter, so how about it, ladies? When you finally bed that perfect kamasutra master, are you hoping to find something small or big in his pants?
     
  17. minstrel

    minstrel Leader of the Insquirrelgency Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Messages:
    10,742
    Likes Received:
    9,991
    Location:
    Near Sedro Woolley, Washington
    Where did you get this statistic? It seemed awfully high, so I did a quick google and found this, where it says "A man's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is about 1/10 of 1%, or one in 1,000."

    I think you're off by two orders of magnitude here.
     
  18. Wreybies

    Wreybies Thrice Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    20,815
    Location:
    El Tembloroso Caribe
    I read that too and frankly, I clutched the boys! :eek: 11% is a really high number if the base is total population of men. Could that 11% perhaps be 11% of breast cancer cases are men?
     
  19. Burlbird

    Burlbird Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    294
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    Wasn't this post originally about frontal nudity on screen?

    ...At least nobody mentioned italics :D
     
  20. Archias

    Archias Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Way on Down the Line
    The question is whether or not the breast is biologically directly connected to the human sexual system. Erogenous zone would adequately describe the nipples and/or the breast, but as I showed earlier, the breasts, biologically are wired directly to the same areas of the brain as the clitoris and vagina. This is different than, say, the fingers or armpits, which while considered 'erogenous zones' are not directly linked to the specific sexual area of the brain. Also, the breasts physically change during sex, whereas the fingertips or toes do not.

    It is similar to a circuit in your house. One circuit may contain all the appliances, and another circuit contain all the lights, heat, etc... From the scientific studies I have seen, they suggest this 'sexual circuit' has been biologically wired together.

    Again, we are merely debating a human definition. Almost all the systems of our bodies are directly and indirectly linked to one another in some fashion. I believe female breasts are both socially and biologically sexual.

    'Part of the sexual experience' is not equivocal to a biologically connected system. A man could stimulate himself on the side of a tree, that doesn't make the tree part of the human sexual or reproductive system.

    Of course men have breasts, they are just not developed. This is why the armor is called a 'breastplate'. But in this conversation, instead of writing 'female breast' in every instance, it's assumed we are speaking of the female breasts because that is the original discussion topic.

    Also, as people have pointed out, your decimal point is misplaced.
     
  21. Burlbird

    Burlbird Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    294
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    @Archias what was it that you argue there, anyways? :) (female) mammaries = reproductive organs?
     
  22. Archias

    Archias Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Way on Down the Line
    I wasn't arguing with anyone, per se. There was a discussion on whether the female breasts were considered a part of the reproductive and sexual systems of the human body. My position is that definitions are very fluid and malleable. What is classified as a 'system'? What defines a 'part'? What is included in human reproduction?

    If we all have different answers to these questions, then all of our definitions will be different.
     
  23. thewordsmith

    thewordsmith Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2009
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    125
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    Again, I think this just goes back to personal ego issues for too many guys thinking it makes a difference in the long run.


    Been my experience, women are hoping to find a good partner, unrelated to the size of his Canadian Club.
     
  24. T.Trian

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    That is my experience as well... and some of my female friends have admitted they are pleasantly surprised about a decent-sized Canadian Club vs. a gummy bear on said good partner. Again, not claiming all women think alike on this issue, just wanted to comment on the old "great lover with small dick" vs. "bad lover with big dick"-thing since it's perfectly possible to be a good lover and well-endowed.
     
  25. Burlbird

    Burlbird Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    294
    Location:
    Somewhere Else
    @Archias didn't mean to apply that you were arguing - maybe "discussion" would be a bettet term... anyways: whose definitions? going back through this thread I see people have their own definitions of what a system of organs / biological system is. That doesn't compute : you can't just have an opinion on something like that!

    according to a quick internet search:

    The American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2007, Houghton Mifflin
    Company) defines "reproductive system as :
    Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition ( 2009,
    Elsevier) says:
    Neither source mentions mammaries/breasts (female or other)

    Okey, so : any other reliable sources out there to clarify this basic premise, the starting point, the core definition? having "a hint" or saying that "you feel like it should/is so" is not enough when it comes to such specific things... (and I don't mean you personally, Archias) :)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice