{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/13/2013 8:57:04 PM
31
Are breasts inherently sexual?
It seems like a common trend, particularly for outspoken feminists, is to claim breasts aren't inherently sexual. Usually this in response to some sort of discussion about modesty. I've also seen it here plenty of time. But this just doesn't make sense to me...obviously they're not reproductive organs in most contexts, but that doesn't mean they aren't sexual. And the fact that, long ago or in undeveloped countries, it was considered normal to be bare-breasted in public, doesn't change the fact that breasts invoke a strong sexual response in males (or anyone attracted to women).
So Flood, we all know this forum is the threshing floor of scientific controversy, so what's your opinion?
And in looking up sites for this discussion, I came across a golden Cosmo article:
[url=http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/hot-sex/hot-sex-tips-challenge-18]How to Have Boob Sex[/url]
Yep. Someone actually wrote that.
As well as the following astute Yahoo response:
[quote][Breasts are] not a reproductive organ, though you can titty fcuk a girl[/quote]
-
My breasts are not gentials. They are a normal body part that serves a purpose. Hands are not inherently sexual, but do people not use them to please? What about legs and ass? What about lips and eyes? They are a symbol for sex in most of western society because society has labeled them as sexual things, then demanding that they be covered up because they hang from the chests of women differently than men, creating a sense of taboo around them. Such an attitude has been so ingrained into society, that we assume it's natural. There's nothing wrong with finding breasts on anyone visually pleasing and sexually arousing. I take issue with shaming women for having them outside the bedroom.
