The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

No more breasts :'(

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Castiel.
A teeny, tiny step.


Well not anymore as the sun has a topless model this morning on page 3 hahaha
BD's the name BD's the game if you catch my drift
Original post by Phoebe Buffay
It's the same reason I like looking at topless men - fun but without any obligations.


Gentlemen, here we have a woman. She may be a feminist. She may not be a feminist. No matter which side of the fence she sits on, it is clear to see she is not trying to shove feminism down our throats and belittle men like other 'feminists'.

Fair play to this young lady, she can understand something from someone else's point of view! Well done!

How come men always have to try and see things from women's eyes? We should let you wear revealing clothes, but then not stare. We should not see your boobs in a sexual way. We should see you as equals and not objects in a newspaper/magazine. Yet when us men are putting the point forward that the exact same happens in men's magazines etc, we are all of a sudden 'not understanding the issues' and avoiding the point?

Why don't women see that equality will never be achieved with the current state 'feminism' - whatever that even means anymore - is. 75% of the women posting on forums in favour of feminism do not even want equality, they just want to have an argue, moan about how unfair everything is, and then run off trying to turn the world in to a female dictatorship.


Kudos to this young lady for not shoving her beliefs down any bodies throats.

From your average guy, who whilst does not follow/support feminism, is not against it all. You could say I am an atheist of feminism. I don't care if women want to be equal, then step up to the platter. I do, however, have a problem when feminism is taken to the extreme and women want to run the world. Not all of you feminists, but some are really letting the team down.
Original post by TheHalfCentaur
Breasts are seen as sexual objects(even though they're not!)


Can anyone explain what "sexual object" means?

I think breasts can be sexual objects as many men and women find them sexually and attractive and derive pleasure from them.

There are societies in which female toplessness is normal, and breasts are not so sexualized there it's true. But that doesn't apply so much to our society.

Also, from an evolutionary point of view, most animals do not stimulate the mammary glands during copulation. Humans are unusual in that they do. However, human breasts are much more enlarged than other primates', and this is not related to lactation, suggesting that sexual selection may have enlarged them.

From a hormonal point of view breast stimulation can stimulate oxytocin, which is involved in pair bonding and physical pleasure. What may have happened in evolution is that oxytocin's role in lactation and bonding the mother and child may have been coopted to bonding men and women during sex.

The only argument I have heard is that you don't need breasts to have sex, therefore they are not sexual objects. But then you may as well argue that french kissing is not sexual, grabbing someone's butt is not sexual etc., which sounds like nonsense to me.

tldr: Breasts totally can be sexual objects.
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
What's the point of that?


Because men want to see boobies and it obviously increases sales of the newspaper. Why would they not do it? Simple money making techniques.
Reply 225
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by bittr n swt
The Sun trolled us all lol

This morning paper has a topless girl on page 3.

Business resumed. Go away feminists and stop telling other girls what's right and what's wrong just to suit your irrational agenda.


Ah so it was all just marketing, worked a treat, now wheres Chilcot ?
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
What's the point of that?


Why does there have to be a point?
Original post by TheHalfCentaur
Topless men and women are not the same? If a woman goes topless, creepy men **** over it. If a man goes topless, he's just topless. Breasts are seen as sexual objects(even though they're not!), so only if society sees breasts and man chests the same should they be treated the same. I'm not saying that it's right for breasts to be so taboo and forbidden and attractive, I'm saying that it is a thing that needs to be considered.


Of course they're sexual objects most straight men are sexually aroused by them. The fact they're seen as sexual objects almost defines them as being that, if they weren't sexual objects they wouldn't be seen as so.
Original post by bittr n swt
The Sun trolled us all lol

This morning paper has a topless girl on page 3.

Business resumed. Go away feminists and stop telling other girls what's right and what's wrong just to suit your irrational agenda.

Oh dear. Now I definitely WON'T buy a copy of the Sun!

In fact I won't even read the sun now unless the page 3 is abolished.
Original post by limetang
Of course they're sexual objects most straight men are sexually aroused by them. The fact they're seen as sexual objects almost defines them as being that, if they weren't sexual objects they wouldn't be seen as so.

They're literally not sexual. They're there to feed babies. Not to entice men. In tribes where women go topless, it's not anything shocking or sexy, it's just another part of their anatomy, like an arm. BECAUSE they're seen as taboo and forbidden, they become attractive, which is ridiculous.
Original post by lewif002
Because men want to see boobies and it obviously increases sales of the newspaper. Why would they not do it? Simple money making techniques.


Why bring it down in the first place, that's my question.

Original post by Phoebe Buffay
Why does there have to be a point?


It's alright for them to bring down the naked pictures for a week and bring it back up again just for laughs and giggles?
wait... you can pose for page 3 when you're 16? wtf?
Original post by Eva.Gregoria

It's alright for them to bring down the naked pictures for a week and bring it back up again just for laughs and giggles?


Erm yes? What on earth do you think?
Original post by Lionheart96
wait... you can pose for page 3 when you're 16? wtf?


That's no longer the case. I believe this only happened before 2003.
Original post by Phoebe Buffay
Erm yes? What on earth do you think?


Ok calm down phoebe. I don't know what world you live in but people rarely do things just for laughs and giggles especially not a large corporation that intends to make as much money as possible.
Original post by Blazar
Yeah, and who do you think is behind the fact that magazines are targeted that way?

(Hint: it's men.)


Of course, it's not like women have any jobs related to editing/publishing/writing articles for magazines :rolleyes:
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
Ok calm down phoebe. I don't know what world you live in but people rarely do things just for laughs and giggles especially not a large corporation that intends to make as much money as possible.


Whether the Sun want to print boobs for a laugh, or to make money, it makes no difference to me.
Original post by Phoebe Buffay
That's no longer the case. I believe this only happened before 2003.

oh, thats still weird it was only like 12 years ago.
Original post by Lionheart96
oh, thats still weird it was only like 12 years ago.


It is still recent enough to make me feel uncomfortable I admit.
Original post by Danny.L
Love the way feminists can pick this to fight over. How about the fact that 97% of workplace deaths are men, where is your protest for "equality"?
over 95% of deaths in war are men, how about you go out and make sure women sign up for the army to support us men. I'm sure you'd have more than enough to talk about if the genders were reversed.
How about breast cancer receiving much larger amounts in funding than prostate cancer, despite averaging 800 more deaths last year. 11600 to 10800 prostate cancer deaths.
Breast cancer receives over double the funding


That tends to be because many jobs are seen as "too dangerous for women" or "not ladylike". Believe it or not, women have actually ben fighting for the right to work in mines and the sewage industry for a long time.

Want to know why the gender ratio of war deaths is so skewed? Because the vast majority of countries don't allow women to fight on the front lines! It wasn't until 2013 that America legalised it. Believe me, women aren't shying away from fighting, but bureaucracy has held them back from being involved in combat to the same extent as men.

The problem with unequal funding for breast and prostate cancer isn't an issue of "sexism against men", as you seem to be implying. It's an issue of awareness. There are many well-known charities and events that raise money exclusively for breast cancer, whereas I can't think of any off the top of my head that are exclusively for prostate cancer. And even so, the ratio of deaths is completely irrelevant. It's the NHS that provides medical care for cancer patients, not the charities. The money that the charities receive goes towards researching a cure. The ratio of deaths will remain almost entirely unaffected until one charity's research groups find a cure or revolutionary treatment. Since that hasn't happened yet, that just means that prostate cancer kills more people. You didn't provide any statistics of survival rates for either type of cancer, so it could mean that prostate cancer is either more common or more deadly than breast cancer. This is absolutely nothing to do with gender roles in society​.

I love the way men can pick things to fight over.
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you