|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #28750 on CommentsLevel 246 Comments: Doinitrite
OfflineSend mail to ddylann Block ddylann Invite ddylann to be your friend
- Views: 1632Fast Turtle
20 12 Total: +8
- Views: 581Portal
12 6 Total: +6
- Views: 1190Socially Awkward Penguin OC
14 8 Total: +6
- Views: 900OC Fallout Meme
12 7 Total: +5
- Views: 828Fancy Chris Crocker
9 6 Total: +3
- Views: 813Parachute
7 4 Total: +3
latest user's comments
|#110 - anybody know what branch this was?||09/12/2014 on Anon's Boot Camp Experience||0|
|#17 - samus faith jill valentine chun li about half of the character… [+] (23 new replies)||09/10/2014 on Strong Female Characters||0|
#20 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
"For the purposes of censorship and equal sexual expression in media:
You can't translate boob sexiness to men, because they don't have boobs. Even a topless guy can barely be counted as sexual, since it's so widely seen. Because of this, you have to, unfortunately, compare a boobs to a penis - as it's only between that and the ass, but all ass is analogous to itself.
The penis has to match sexuality to boobs and vaginas, and I think - with the addition of the balls - it has that potential. I'd say the level of sexuality of a naked boob is relative to that of a flaccid penis - just look at old artwork. As such, a covered boob - in great detail - must match with a covered penis of similar detail. You can even match their physics of Flop and/or Jiggle.
Now, since a penis still needs to match its sexuality to a vagina, this is where the erectness comes in. I believe that the various angles of a hard penis can compare to various angles of a vagina, as it has no final form. "
#106 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
Breasts aren't censored because of a higher sexual standard; there is a higher sexual standard because they are censored.
Compare with ankles in ye olden days. Ankles aren't inherently sexual, but the (blah blah church blah shame of body, this isn't the point), caused most female skin to be taboo, to be covered in public. So seeing an ankle or a wrist was sexy, because it was often covered.
So a bare male chest, since it is very pervasive in media, from advertisements to cartoons, the opposite effect makes it much less sexual than it would be otherwise. Cake would suck if we ate it every day.
#110 - kanadetenshi (09/10/2014) [-]
Circular reasoning and extremely false. Breasts are covered for the same reason our genitals are covered, because throughout our evolution when our organs necessarry for reproduction and nourishment where covered they had less chance of being infected or harmed, that's basic fucking biology.
A men's bare chest has no purpose, it doesn't need to nourish babies, so it's far less harmfull if a man's chest gets harmed.
The fact that it's censored doesn't make it any less sexual or attractive, that's bullshit and special pleading. If you think otherwise then look at the average male model pictures in female magazines.
#119 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
If you look through history, genitals weren't considered taboo in most cultures until the advent of the Catholic church and its pushing of the shame of one's nakedness. It seems like you're making this up as you go along.
Circular reasoning would be saying "boobs are sexy because boobs are sexy." My argument was not circular in its reasoning because I show a very clear distinction between correct ideas.
And you haven't given me any counter-evidence to ignore, so there was no special pleading. And if you want to look in magazines, look at how many bare breasts are in non-pornographic magazines vs bare male chests.
#125 - kanadetenshi (09/10/2014) [-]
And that's why clothing existed long before the catholic church, not only that but clothing specifically to cover female breasts. In fact the ancient greeks had what can be considered the pedecessor of the bra. blog.herroom.com/infographic/history-lingerie-infographic/ Looks like someone needs to do his research.
You said that breasts are censored because they are hold to a sexual standard yet the reason people hold them to a sexual standard is because they are censored, you're creating a blatant circular reasoning without providing an actual reason as to why they're censored. The reason is biology.
I can't give counter evidence to something you haven't even given evidence for. And again your point about magazines once again begs the question whether censorship means something is more sexual, which is a claim you've given no evidence for.
#131 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
I didn't say that breasts are censored because they're held to a sexual standard. Breasts are censored because the Catholic church pushed shame of the naked body. This created a taboo of nudity, and the taboo of nudity led to the censorship of nudity, and the censorship of that nudity created a sexualization of nudity.
And the bra is a method of support before anything else - especially in the intent of its creation.
#133 - kanadetenshi (09/10/2014) [-]
That claim is bullshit and i already showed you why, bare breasts and nudity where taboo since the fucking paleolithic era and even the ancient greeks didn't support it.
Yes the intent of it's creation is to prevent genitals and boobs from being harmed, that's why it's taboo. Because these are important parts for reproduction and blatantly exposing them poses a risk for harm. This isn't needed for a male chest since it's a useless vestige.
#144 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
The fact that clothes exist doesn't prove a taboo against genitals, it proves the common sense of protecting yourself from bushes, bugs, and cold weather. Just look at the artwork of many ancient cultures depicting a naked female - usually a token of worship or fertility, not a pornographic tool. Then then obsession with the young male body with the Greek, cock statues all up in everywhere! Not sexual, but heroic.
And clothing was meant to cover the core of the body to preserve warmth, not to keep genitals from falling off.
#154 - kanadetenshi (09/10/2014) [-]
Exactly. It's logical for women to cover themself to protect themself, that's why we have developed the instinct and necessity to cover breasts. Male chests don't need that.
That's precisely what the church as paintings have, nudity to show off things such as fertility. Just look at the sistine chapel. That doesn't mean nudity wasn't taboo.
They where for both, genitals are soft and vunerable, sharp bushes, insects, infections, ect.
#157 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
So a man's chest is not the core of his body? A man's vulnerable organs aren't in his torso? The heat of a man's body exudes solely from his genitals?
Men wore clothes, too. Including shirts. So if clothes are what made the things under them taboo, why aren't male chests taboo?
#162 - kanadetenshi (09/10/2014) [-]
A males chest is obviously not as important as the woman's. A man's chest is completely useless. It's nipples are a mere vestige, a deformity. A woman's chest is important for survival, the more fertile and healthy a breast is, the better it can nourish children, obviously female breasts where held in a much higher regard for survival.
Because that wasn't the purpose of a shirt, the shirt was purely for warmth. But female clothing where designed to make sure to protect the breasts.
#165 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
Then how would you explain every tribe on National Geographic where nobody wears a shirt? Not the males or the females.
And evolutionary importance doesn't matter when it's cold. A man is just as cold without a shirt as a woman is, if not more so without a bundle of fat covering him.
#172 - kanadetenshi (09/10/2014) [-]
Well first of all it's goddamn hot in africa, humans started to wear clothes when they started migrating towards europe which is where humans had to get creative to make up for the sudden change in climate. Second of all why do you think the breasts of these tribes are so completely soggy and dried up? The fact that they have a lack of proper nourishment in the lands is already bad enough, but they make it even worse for themself by not covering and protecting their breasts.
O my fucking god you are so dense. It has nothing to do with warmth. I'm talking about vunerability in GENERAL. It's a fact that it's much more important from a survival standpoint to protect female breasts over male breasts.
#176 - kanadetenshi (09/10/2014) [-]
They where shirtless until they needed shirts, which was when they migrated to europe. The point is in our evolutionary timeline exposed breasts simply meant more exposure to harm, which is why we're so obsessed in covering them. Doesn't mean it's more sexual, it just means we have a biological tendency to cover them.
#43 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
It's not what is or isn't sexually appealing, it's about the level of its sexual appeal. Do you know why people like boobs? Because they're censored. They're covered. And since they're withheld, they're special, like food in North Korea. Bare man chests are very commonplace, and while sexy, cannot be as sexy as something that is routinely covered up except for special occasions.
#18 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
Samus: zero suit
Jill Valentine: knockoff zero suit in a couple games
Chun Li: that's fair, not everyone one the list is extremely sexually suggestive
And I'm totally okay with sexual suggestiveness, just make it equal. I have an entire deductive tree explaining that - to sum it up - a floppy outlined package is equal to boobs in sexiness. I'll try to find that.
#30 - ellojello (09/10/2014) [-]
When have you ever seen a guy out for a job and been able to see his dick flopping around? Maybe once or twice you can see it move a bit, but it's not common. On the other hand, women with ample size breasts, despite their best efforts, cannot really stop them from bouncing while they run.
Your argument basically boils down to "We just need to give video game men massive schlongs if the women are going to have boobs that move realistically or else it's not fair."
Alternately it boils down to "If I don't get to see massive cocks to satisfy my own sexual thrills while playing a video game, then no one else should get to be aroused by it either."
#46 - demandsgayversion (09/10/2014) [-]
It's about the equality of sexuality. You rephrasing my argument into a childish fit does not further your argument.
It's about the intent of the large boobs. Nobody adds large floppy boobs to their game because it's realistic - it's a stylistic choice to add sexual appeal to the character to widen the range of people who would be interested in purchasing the game.
The men in videogames, while they are usually muscular and possibly shirtless, are less sexual. Skin =/= Flop. The physics of a breast add a depth to that body part; a sexual realism. When you look at a bare male chest, it's not dynamic. The muscles don't ripple and flex. A
package, on the other hand, can give that depth to a character's anatomy - and to outline the area in detail is no more lewd than a boob with a nipple poking out.
This is the point of the controversy of sexualized women in videogames, it's not proportional. Men aren't sexualized, they're heroicized (not a word, but you get the point).
So don't make this a personal issue of my own perverted nature, but a perspective on a possible solution to an inequal sexuality in videogames.
|#57 - totally not all one person||09/07/2014 on Tumblin||0|
|#84 - what you learn in spanish class is completely different from w…||09/07/2014 on Think first||0|
|#39 - no its just that my race is embarrassing and black people are …||09/07/2014 on White people||0|
|#210 - im 16||09/07/2014 on Ryuko||0|
|#19 - i thought you were just asking questions for the sake of your username [+] (1 new reply)||09/06/2014 on Accidental spoilers||+1|
|#17 - because they just ripped off the A and quickly snapped a pic i… [+] (3 new replies)||09/06/2014 on Accidental spoilers||0|
|#15 - no i meant the whole phrase that youre supposed to be looking … [+] (5 new replies)||09/06/2014 on Accidental spoilers||0|
|#13 - just L dies. i think its referencing death note [+] (7 new replies)||09/06/2014 on Accidental spoilers||+1|
Join Subscribe turtles