Breasts!

WindSock

In reference to Hagars post in the Pink Thread, What are your thoughts on Women revealing their breasts, and the taboo that surrounds them?




Absolutley no Muppetry or you will be banned.

Creamy Goodness

i honestly can't see what's so shocking about a piece of skin tbh.

yes it's sexually appealing to most people but if you's had to cover up everything that's appealing to guys well then you'd be walking around with a sheet over you with no eye holes.

Doctor DooM

I always wonder, if you look at it logically, what is the difference between a topless male and a topless female? Surely both are wrong, or both are right?

Surely the reason female breasts are so sexualised is because its a bit of a ladies anatomies which is taboo, and would loose a certain amount of their mystique if they were all over the place?

Black Swan

WindSock wrote: »

What are your thoughts on Women revealing their breasts, and the taboo that surrounds them?

Have you sunbathed in Rio? Topless was common and customary, so if you felt embarrassment there, it was your problem not theirs. First time, admittedly I had to adjust, but after awhile it was no big thing and eliminated straplines when tanning.:cool:

Dudess

The female form is beautiful but it depends on context. E.g. page 3 is utterly repugnant - the idea of it, the fact that some of the models are barely past jailbait stage, and worst of all, the passive, dumb-looking expression in their eyes.
But something like burlesque (as purveyed by Dita Von Teese) looks fabulous and is a great celebration of the female form.

Peared

Do you think the lads reading The Sun see a difference between looking at Donna from Essex boobs and Ditas boobs? I think the context means more to women than to men. Unless completely horrible, to most men a tit is a tit is a tit.

Doctor DooM

Dudess wrote: »

The female form is beautiful but it depends on context. E.g. page 3 is utterly repugnant - the idea of it, the fact that some of the models are barely past jailbait stage, and worst of all, the passive, dumb-looking expression in their eyes.
But something like burlesque (as purveyed by Dita Von Teese) looks fabulous and is a great celebration of the female form.

Completely agree with this, but can I ask the question- if Dita was photo'd showing some boobage, is this ok for you? as opposed to, say, Jordan?

ztoical

have cut and pasted this from the pink thread as this was started while I was typing it:

The images of women I find offensive aren't the ones showing them naked or even showing them in a sexual manner but the ones that show them as submissive. For example several months a comic book cover came out with the following image:
Heros for hire original image

It caused up roar and all the top heads at Marvel claimed all the femnazis were getting their knickers in a twist cus the characters are half dressed, have big boobies etc but the actually issue most female readers had was that these were meant to be "superhero" women who were being presented as submissive and weak. The image was remixed by one artist to show the difference
heros for hire remixed cover

The big boobies are still there, the tight clothes but the characters are looking at the camera and come across as sexual but strong women.

Doctor DooM

Peared wrote: »

Do you think the lads reading The Sun see a difference between looking at Donna from Essex boobs and Ditas boobs? I think the context means more to women than to men. Unless completely horrible, to most men a tit is a tit is a tit.

I don't know, I would be much more fascinated (and interested) in Dita. I wouldn't keep a pic of donna, I might of Dita.

Then I wouldn't waste my time with the sun, and tbh when I worked in a place that it could always be found in the canteen, the page three girls got kinda boring. They were sexualised, but not sexy, if that makes any sense. The whole forced nature of it put me off, so again we're back to the sexualisation thing.

Doctor DooM

ztoical wrote: »

have cut and pasted this from the pink thread as this was started while I was typing it:

The images of women I find offensive aren't the ones showing them naked or even showing them in a sexual manner but the ones that show them as submissive. For example several months a comic book cover came out with the following image:
Heros for hire original image

It caused up roar and all the top heads at Marvel claimed all the femnazis were getting their knickers in a twist cus the characters are half dressed, have big boobies etc but the actually issue most female readers had was that these were meant to be "superhero" women who were being presented as submissive and weak. The image was remixed by one artist to show the difference
heros for hire remixed cover

The big boobies are still there, the tight clothes but the characters are looking at the camera and come across as sexual but strong women.

You know, some women choose to be submissive, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a matter for another forum.

As a comics fan, I do get embarrased by images like that. it's hard to rationalise comics as an adult art form, when the biggest company in the business is putting out issues like that.


Do images like that even sell comics?

xanthe

The likes on page 3 shows lack of respect. However if one was to travel abroad and sunbathe topless, noone bats an eyelid as its the norm!
I have tried to sunbathe topless in Ireland, the looks and side glances I got were not nice.
Nothing wrong with showing a bit of flesh.

ztoical

SDooM wrote: »

You know, some women choose to be submissive, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a matter for another forum.

No there is nothing wrong with women who choose to be submissive but for images that are being as for mass market advertising/exposure I don't think its right. Everything has to be taken in context with the example posted the characters being used are meant to be superheros therefore posing them in such a submissive way is, to me, offensive. Like you said a matter for another forum/topic

SDooM wrote: »

As a comics fan, I do get embarrased by images like that. it's hard to rationalise comics as an adult art form, when the biggest company in the business is putting out issues like that.

Do images like that even sell comics?

Like that image? no not after the up roar it caused. Yes comics can be over sexual with spandex women - but characters like wonder woman also have very positive roles that are good for young female readers to see [and theres a female writer writting that comic at the moment]. Its not the best example of a women friendly industy [it is getting better] but the conversation reminded me of the cover and difference changing just a few things will make to an image.

Dudess

Peared wrote: »

Do you think the lads reading The Sun see a difference between looking at Donna from Essex boobs and Ditas boobs? I think the context means more to women than to men. Unless completely horrible, to most men a tit is a tit is a tit.

SDooM wrote: »

Completely agree with this, but can I ask the question- if Dita was photo'd showing some boobage, is this ok for you? as opposed to, say, Jordan?

It's classier and more about glamour than sleaze.

Oh I wouldn't see a problem with Jordan making money off her assets - she seems like a strong woman, not a ditz. But it's horribly tacky all right.

Dudess

SDooM wrote: »

You know, some women choose to be submissive, and there's nothing wrong with that

ztoical wrote: »

No there is nothing wrong with women who choose to be submissive

There's a LOT wrong with it. Also, "choose" to be submissive? An oxymoron if ever there was one.

Doctor DooM

Dudess wrote: »

There's a LOT wrong with it. Also, "choose" to be submissive? An oxymoron if ever there was one.

I think you are missing my point, some people choose to engage in a Dominant/submissive relationship, was the joke I was going for.

EDIT: I don't think I am allowed to talk about that here though!

Peared

Dudess I think its classier and sexier and so do you. My point is that a lot of men couldnt give a hoot what the context is as long as there are boobs on display.

ztoical

SDooM wrote: »

I think you are missing my point, some people choose to engage in a Dominant/submissive relationship, was the joke I was going for.

EDIT: I don't think I am allowed to talk about that here though!

I was taking it in that context - I actually have some friends who are heavily into that scene so I know there are both men and women who chose to be submissive [or dominant] in certain situations the key word here is that they choose it in contrast to mass marketed images that present women in general as weak/submissive/the lesser sex etc.

Doctor DooM

ztoical wrote: »

Like that image? no not after the up roar it caused. Yes comics can be over sexual with spandex women - but characters like wonder woman also have very positive roles that are good for young female readers to see [and theres a female writer writting that comic at the moment]. Its not the best example of a women friendly industy [it is getting better] but the conversation reminded me of the cover and difference changing just a few things will make to an image.

I know my comics Wonder woman has also had its share of dodgy images. It made an easy target for "seduction of the innocent." She spent alot of time tied up, waiting for rescue. Of course, this was a long time ago. Birds of prey is a great example of a comic with strong female characters.

There is an increase of female writers in the industry and their work tends to be very good. it is amazing the difference to a bit of artwork will make. All in the eyes.

xanthe

slightly straying off the subject I think.... btw Dominant/submissive relationships are not a joke to those involved in them.... Do you have a right to judge them?

Doctor DooM

ztoical wrote: »

I was taking it in that context - I actually have some friends who are heavily into that scene so I know there are both men and women who chose to be submissive [or dominant] in certain situations the key word here is that they choose it in contrast to mass marketed images that present women in general as weak/submissive/the lesser sex etc.

To clarify I agree with you entirely, I was making an in-joke.

ztoical

SDooM wrote: »

I think you are missing my point, some people choose to engage in a Dominant/submissive relationship, was the joke I was going for.

EDIT: I don't think I am allowed to talk about that here though!

xanthe wrote: »

slightly straying off the subject I think.... btw Dominant/submissive relationships are not a joke to those involved in them.... Do you have a right to judge them?

exactly I don't want this to turn into a discussion of BDSM culture but the reference to women who chose to be submissive it was meant in a context where it was their choice and any imagery associated is marketed towards that market and not the general public so that it is kept in context. There are people uncomfortable with that scene and think it encourages women to be submissive but I think its a misunderstanding from people outside of a scene they don't understand. I know some pretty strong people [both male and female] who chose in their private time to be submissive. Like i said everything needs to be in context.

Dudess

SDooM wrote: »

I think you are missing my point, some people choose to engage in a Dominant/submissive relationship

Ah, big difference! You hadn't made that clear.

Doctor DooM

ztoical wrote: »

I was taking it in that context - I actually have some friends who are heavily into that scene so I know there are both men and women who chose to be submissive [or dominant] in certain situations the key word here is that they choose it in contrast to mass marketed images that present women in general as weak/submissive/the lesser sex etc.

Dudess wrote: »

Ah, big difference! You hadn't made that clear.

My apologies, and maybe Jordan was the wrong name, I don't know the names of any other page three types for my example earlier. Is there a dividing line when it becomes offensive?

Dudess

Jordan is a businesswoman. She's clearly in control. It's more the concept of page 3 - the fact that it exists in the first place. "Let's stick a young girl's tits in the paper for people to view over their Cornflakes every morning". Grotesquely cynical.

Silverfish

Dudess wrote: »

Jordan is a businesswoman. She's clearly in control. It's more the concept of page 3 - the fact that it exists in the first place. "Let's stick a young girl's tits in the paper for people to view over their Cornflakes every morning". Grotesquely cynical.

I'm not so sure. Its not a case where they are photographed without their knowledge, or without knowing where the picture was going to be used.

However, I heartily disapprove of the Page 3 concept.

crosstownk

As a bloke, I much prefer a revealing cleavage rather than a 'tits out' scenario (as in page 3). It's always better when the imagination has to take over.

Revealing breasts is something that should be intimate - but partial revelation that gets the mind wandering is an art.

LivingDeadGirl

So a page 3 girl getting her tits out is grotesque, but Dita doing it isn't? That makes no sense. Dita is not displaying herself to empower women, she is in it for the money, just the same as any page 3 girl. I'm pretty sure Dita started out young too btw, it takes time to make it and she's hardly past it now is she? She's been making films for years after all.

Weidii

Absolutely nothing wrong with showing your breasts, I don't really know why there's such a taboo on it. Even in countries where it's ok to sunbathe topless, I'm sure you still wouldn't see women going to buy an ice cream naked.

I was watching a documentary that involved some nudist colony and the lad I was watching it, when presented with real women (ie, not just slim 20 year olds) made the statement "what's the point in them showing their boobs if they're not even good looking," being totally serious. I nearly slapped him.

I think nowadays they're seen soley as a sexual thing, not as a normal part of the body.

Doctor DooM

LivingDeadGirl wrote: »

So a page 3 girl getting her tits out is grotesque, but Dita doing it isn't? That makes no sense. Dita is not displaying herself to empower women, she is in it for the money, just the same as any page 3 girl. I'm pretty sure Dita started out young too btw, it takes time to make it and she's hardly past it now is she? She's been making films for years after all.

Its not grotesque, it just lacks anything which appeals to me.

mike65

Weidii wrote: »

Even in countries where it's ok to sunbathe topless, I'm sure you still wouldn't see women going to buy an ice cream naked.

Some Health and Safety issues with this.

Mike.

Jules

Question... when everyone says showing off her breast do you need to have the nipple exposed or no. Personally seeing a picture of say dita doing a burlesque show, with nipples covered is, to me, much less offensive then say some one with the whole breast on show.

I think Dita is stunning and has some class about her.

LivingDeadGirl

She has posed nude and been in films completely naked numerous times to be fair.

Jules

I know but i juat taking the example of her burlesque shows.

oleras

WindSock wrote: »

In reference to Hagars post in the Pink Thread, What are your thoughts on Women revealing their breasts, and the taboo that surrounds them?




Absolutley no Muppetry or you will be banned.

Thoughts ? i love them, show more.

Taboo that surrounds showing them ? I did not know such existed.

WindSock

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Have you sunbathed in Rio? Topless was common and customary, so if you felt embarrassment there, it was your problem not theirs. First time, admittedly I had to adjust, but after awhile it was no big thing and eliminated straplines when tanning.:cool:

No, Ive never been to Rio. I have sunbathed topless in other countires though. I liked the freedom of being able to do that with no pervs around. I see you are from the states, well my sister was in Hawaii last year with a friend and they were topless on the beach. This man from a nearby hotel asked them would they mind covering up as they were offending some of their guests. The pair of them laughed in disbelief. And as for the whole Janet Jackson nipplegate scandel....

Crumble Froo

it was a wardrobe malfucntion.

rediguana

Any women who wants to show her breasts should be allowed to. Is it not a clear-cut case of sexual discrimination when bare-chested men can strut around unmolested and free from recrimination, but women cannot?

I'm male and 28 so I really don't care if women are discriminated against or not. But I think that anyone who is "offended" (whatever that is) by the sight of a bare breast is a moron.

Jules

You calling me a moron?

dr.bollocko

Well don't look down when you come out of the shower if it offends you so much.

WindSock

Crumble Froo wrote: »

it was a wardrobe malfucntion.

rediguana

Jules wrote: »

You calling me a moron?

I'm not calling you in particular a moron, Jules.

Tell me, what's so offensive about the sight of your own chest?

oleras

Jules wrote: »

You calling me a moron?

you get that from that............

ztoical

rediguana wrote: »

I'm male and 28 so I really don't care if women are discriminated against or not. But I think that anyone who is "offended" (whatever that is) by the sight of a bare breast is a moron.

would you be offended by the sight of a women breast feeding in public?

rediguana

oleras wrote: »

you get that from that............

Slick joke / signature!

rediguana

ztoical wrote: »

would you be offended by the sight of a women breast feeding in public?

Of course I wouldn't. Can anyone tell me what's offensive about it? It's a crazy, obscene, wicked notion to even suggest that it might be offensive.

ztoical

rediguana wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't. Can anyone tell me what's offensive about it? It's a crazy, obscene, wicked notion to even suggest that it might be offensive.

I agree but alot of people do and I've seen people complain either to other people around or the woman themselves. I don't understand why.

rediguana

ztoical wrote: »

I agree but alot of people do and I've seen people complain either to other people around or the woman themselves. I don't understand why.

I would have zero respect for the individual who carps 'cause a woman is nursing her infant. I'm not trying to be extreme here, but I think they should be tied up with lead wrapped round their ankles and flung into the manky Liffey, or the Shannon if they're from the West.

Blush_01

It's not really practical to be topless a lot of the time if you've got a chest that's even slightly large - I'm sure your breasts would get in the way if you were trying to do a lot of things. Sunbathing topless is entirely the prerogative of the sunbather imho, and with breast feeding most women are so good at it once they get used to it that you'd barely realise they were doing it, if it wasn't for the headless baby they were holding. I guess it depends on the circumstances and context.

dr.bollocko

Wait.... Headless baby???????

Crumble Froo

ever seen a discreetly breastfed kid?

Doctor DooM

Crumble Froo wrote: »

ever seen a discreetly breastfed kid?

No, because it is so discrete.