The difference between topless men, and topless women.

ryan · 5th November 2003, 02:29

Why is it that a female without a shirt, is considered porn (or inappropriate), but a male without a shirt isn't?

I don't understand the difference.

Trigear · 5th November 2003, 02:36

one word: poobies.

ryan · 5th November 2003, 02:40

But still, Some men have poobies, and some women don't. I don't see the point. Why not say a topless man is innappropriate too.

hawk606 · 5th November 2003, 02:42

why does my sister have posters of topless backstreet boys or whatnot, whereas If I tried the same thing with any female musician, my mom would have a fit?

maybe she just knows I have way more class than my sister

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 02:50

I was always under the impression that this was, if not purely an American construct, at least more of a "bad thing" here than in other *cough* European *cough* countries. I seem to remember a certain French fella grumbling cause the entrance to his school was covered with a well endowed art display, and it depressed him. But I digress.

At any rate, I feel it's related to the fear of accepting anything sexual as natural. I'll spare you the rant about MPAA ratings.

s1138 · 5th November 2003, 02:52

i never understood it either. its a thing created by society, thats my guess.

BigBob · 5th November 2003, 03:24

Because a shirtless women really turns on a man, but a shirtless guy doesn't have the same effect on women. The world doesn't more horny men.

iomegajaz · 5th November 2003, 03:29

Ah, but I think the deeper question that idiot is getting at is, why does the average man get more turned on by a topless member of the opposite sex, than the average woman does?

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 03:32

I'm not sure, but I'm sure it has to do with the fact that nothing on a girl stands up when she gets excited.

richardharris · 5th November 2003, 04:05

>>>>> (.)(.) <<<<<

Did you get it?

richardharris · 5th November 2003, 04:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh[jaz]
Ah, but I think the deeper question that idiot is getting at is, why does the average man get more turned on by a topless member of the opposite sex, than the average woman does?

Because (.)(.)
Are sex parts of a woman
and the male dont have any sex part on the same place.

iomegajaz · 5th November 2003, 04:09

Not lately, actually. :sad:

Coman · 5th November 2003, 04:09

*imagining pictures of men in bras in the future*

Namelessv1 · 5th November 2003, 04:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugh[jaz]
Ah, but I think the deeper question that idiot is getting at is, why does the average man get more turned on by a topless member of the opposite sex, than the average woman does?

Possibly stems from a fixation of sustenance-giving mammary glands developed at an infantile age?

White Raven · 5th November 2003, 04:16

Hey a shirtless guy turns me on, just... Not his boobs, in particular.

I guess it's societarian pressures, I was asking the same question in the summertime. Answer: There is no answer. It's society and culture.

BigBob · 5th November 2003, 04:21

Just the word 'shirtless' turned me on!!!! Notice how frequent guys are responding to this post!

deathazre · 5th November 2003, 04:41

Quote:

Originally posted by BigBob
Because a shirtless women really turns on a man, but a shirtless guy doesn't have the same effect on women.

But, this could very well be caused by the fact that women aren't allowed to go topless. Go to a nudist camp and spot the regulars walking around with erections... doubt there will be many at all.

Trigear · 5th November 2003, 04:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Dawg4Life2K1
Possibly stems from a fixation of sustenance-giving mammary glands developed at an infantile age?

that'd be my guess. freud would say it has to do with an oedipal impulse on the part of males.

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 04:47

while schmoking der ceeegar.

horse-fly · 5th November 2003, 04:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Trigear
that'd be my guess. freud would say it has to do with an oedipal impulse on the part of males.

Freud says a lot of stuff, most of it not proven, and not capable of being proven

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 05:00

prove it.

horse-fly · 5th November 2003, 05:02

Quote:

Originally posted by BullGawD
prove it.

the fact that freud's theories cannot be tested in any manner or sort is proof enough..

iomegajaz · 5th November 2003, 05:12

Go do your mother in the arse, and then tell me his theories aren't able to be tested.

Sorry, that was a bit gross. My point is, how are they not testable?

horse-fly · 5th November 2003, 05:18

science revolves around measurement and such... and definitions are also key... so 5 quarts of water will always be 5 quarts of water, as long as there are 5 quarts and defined by measurement and water being H20...

Freud talked about random things like penis envy, dream interpretation, etc. and freuds theories used idea and concepts that aren't too easily defined (ie make a universal definition for "happier" and how to measure it +0.1% happier).

Psychology, the field where freud worked it, is a science, so it requires all those precise measurements and definitions (so they are able to track brain waves during your sleep, increase heart beat in sexual intercourse, etc).

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 05:32

Nah ah. It's a science in the same way history is a "science". In that post WWII hipster-science rush among the Academy to lay claim to the respect and funding being granted to hardline sciences. There's a fact side and an interpretive side.

You provide nothing that says Freud’s theories aren't testable. What you are relying on is the idea that we have yet to develop the desire or the discipline to produce a multi-generational study of such minute exactitude and simultaneous broad generalization as to take steps toward confirming or denying such theories - a study which must entail historical sociological factors, immediate sociological factors, and an involved study of individual characteristics and history, compounded with hereditary data, compounded with civic data to quantify feelings, traditions and ideas.

I’m not defending Freud. I’m just saying that you’ve committed a non sequitur fallacy, (huh huh, fallus) and that the contextually undeveloped nature of science bears as much of the "blame" as Freud’s premises.

I wanna talk about boobies some more. Where's Bilbo? Fuck Bilbo, he hates mountain lion kittens. Where's ShyShy?

Sandman2012 · 5th November 2003, 05:41

Quote:

Originally posted by idiot
The difference between topless men, and topless women.

I never came on a topless man's chest.

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 05:42

anal only, eh?

Please don't hurt me. Not like that you perv. Stop touching me.

ShyShy · 5th November 2003, 05:44

/note to self: Sandman has no aim what-so-ever, appear hand-eye coordination slightly "off"

Sandman2012 · 5th November 2003, 05:47

BullGawD: I'll stop touching you when you let go. :P

ShyShy: you're the one who claims to be from my bedroom. :P

ShyShy · 5th November 2003, 05:49

And which is why I can bitch about your aim

Sandman2012 · 5th November 2003, 05:51

I apologize profusely for not thinking clearly at the height of climax. Perhaps if you weren't watching TV during the act I could concentrate...

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 05:53

Armegeddon! ARMEGEDDON!!!

hrm. some folks aren't going to get that reference. hamsters?

ShyShy · 5th November 2003, 05:53

Well if you would be more entertaining than the freakin' stock reports I would

Xerxes · 5th November 2003, 05:53

What a saucy exchange! (And I mean saucy in both senses of the word)

ShyShy · 5th November 2003, 05:56

Yeah, you can enjoy it, Xerxes, you're not the one who has to wash the silk sheets. Do you know how hard it is to get stains out of those?

Sandman2012 · 5th November 2003, 05:58

Quote:

Originally posted by ShyShy
Well if you would be more entertaining than the freakin' stock reports I would

I can't decide which joke to post so I'll put 'em both:

a) it's not my fault the economy is so exciting

b) economists wish stock prices could stay up as long as I can.

:aardvark:

ShyShy · 5th November 2003, 06:01

That was lame, Sandman. *whack* Next?

Sandman2012 · 5th November 2003, 06:05

Yeah, those were lame.

My delivery is much better in person.

BullGawD · 5th November 2003, 06:07

*snicker*

ryan · 5th November 2003, 11:36

Or it could come from decades ago when a woman just showing her ankles was considered 'inappropriate'..

Now.. back on topic.. or yeah something.. NO MORE SPOOGE JOKES

5th November 2003, 02:29	#1
ryan not fucked, not quite. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Missouri via Tennessee Posts: 8,813	The difference between topless men, and topless women. Why is it that a female without a shirt, is considered porn (or inappropriate), but a male without a shirt isn't? I don't understand the difference.

5th November 2003, 02:42	#4
hawk606 Super Freaky (Alumni) Join Date: May 2000 Location: pab's house Posts: 580	why does my sister have posters of topless backstreet boys or whatnot, whereas If I tried the same thing with any female musician, my mom would have a fit? maybe she just knows I have way more class than my sister hey

5th November 2003, 02:50	#5
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	I was always under the impression that this was, if not purely an American construct, at least more of a "bad thing" here than in other cough European cough countries. I seem to remember a certain French fella grumbling cause the entrance to his school was covered with a well endowed art display, and it depressed him. But I digress. At any rate, I feel it's related to the fear of accepting anything sexual as natural. I'll spare you the rant about MPAA ratings. ...a blatant person.

5th November 2003, 03:29	#8
iomegajaz Balled and Chained Alumni Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 5,310	Ah, but I think the deeper question that idiot is getting at is, why does the average man get more turned on by a topless member of the opposite sex, than the average woman does? "My heart hates uggos." –J.D.

5th November 2003, 03:32	#9
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	I'm not sure, but I'm sure it has to do with the fact that nothing on a girl stands up when she gets excited. ...a blatant person.

5th November 2003, 02:36	#2
Trigear bear! Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 3,426	one word: poobies.

5th November 2003, 02:40	#3
ryan not fucked, not quite. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Missouri via Tennessee Posts: 8,813	But still, Some men have poobies, and some women don't. I don't see the point. Why not say a topless man is innappropriate too.

5th November 2003, 02:52	#6
s1138 Alumni? Join Date: May 2000 Location: joja Posts: 6,936	i never understood it either. its a thing created by society, thats my guess.

5th November 2003, 03:24	#7
BigBob Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Washington, PA Posts: 26	Because a shirtless women really turns on a man, but a shirtless guy doesn't have the same effect on women. The world doesn't more horny men.

5th November 2003, 04:05	#10
richardharris Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 132	>>>>> (.)(.) <<<<< Did you get it?

5th November 2003, 04:09	#12
iomegajaz Balled and Chained Alumni Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 5,310	Not lately, actually. :sad: "My heart hates uggos." –J.D.

5th November 2003, 04:09	#13
Coman Punk (Forum King) Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 4.5th dimension . . Posts: infinitely few Posts: 2,799	imagining pictures of men in bras in the future "Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?"

5th November 2003, 04:16	#15
White Raven Little Winged One Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada, now UK Posts: 4,174	Hey a shirtless guy turns me on, just... Not his boobs, in particular. I guess it's societarian pressures, I was asking the same question in the summertime. Answer: There is no answer. It's society and culture. just as feathery as ever \| portfolio \| a poignant quote

5th November 2003, 04:21	#16
BigBob Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Washington, PA Posts: 26	Just the word 'shirtless' turned me on!!!! Notice how frequent guys are responding to this post!

5th November 2003, 04:47	#19
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	while schmoking der ceeegar. ...a blatant person.

5th November 2003, 05:00	#21
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	prove it. ...a blatant person.

5th November 2003, 05:12	#23
iomegajaz Balled and Chained Alumni Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 5,310	Go do your mother in the arse, and then tell me his theories aren't able to be tested. Sorry, that was a bit gross. My point is, how are they not testable? "My heart hates uggos." –J.D.

5th November 2003, 05:18	#24
horse-fly Account Closed Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 2,360	science revolves around measurement and such... and definitions are also key... so 5 quarts of water will always be 5 quarts of water, as long as there are 5 quarts and defined by measurement and water being H20... Freud talked about random things like penis envy, dream interpretation, etc. and freuds theories used idea and concepts that aren't too easily defined (ie make a universal definition for "happier" and how to measure it +0.1% happier). Psychology, the field where freud worked it, is a science, so it requires all those precise measurements and definitions (so they are able to track brain waves during your sleep, increase heart beat in sexual intercourse, etc).

5th November 2003, 05:32	#25
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	Nah ah. It's a science in the same way history is a "science". In that post WWII hipster-science rush among the Academy to lay claim to the respect and funding being granted to hardline sciences. There's a fact side and an interpretive side. You provide nothing that says Freud’s theories aren't testable. What you are relying on is the idea that we have yet to develop the desire or the discipline to produce a multi-generational study of such minute exactitude and simultaneous broad generalization as to take steps toward confirming or denying such theories - a study which must entail historical sociological factors, immediate sociological factors, and an involved study of individual characteristics and history, compounded with hereditary data, compounded with civic data to quantify feelings, traditions and ideas. I’m not defending Freud. I’m just saying that you’ve committed a non sequitur fallacy, (huh huh, fallus) and that the contextually undeveloped nature of science bears as much of the "blame" as Freud’s premises. I wanna talk about boobies some more. Where's Bilbo? Fuck Bilbo, he hates mountain lion kittens. Where's ShyShy? ...a blatant person. Last edited by BullGawD; 5th November 2003 at 06:04.

5th November 2003, 05:42	#27
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	anal only, eh? Please don't hurt me. Not like that you perv. Stop touching me. ...a blatant person.

5th November 2003, 05:44	#28
ShyShy Amazon Bush Woman Forum Queen Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Sticks, Queensland Posts: 8,066	/note to self: Sandman has no aim what-so-ever, appear hand-eye coordination slightly "off"

5th November 2003, 05:47	#29
Sandman2012 <3 foobar2k (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,203	BullGawD: I'll stop touching you when you let go. :P ShyShy: you're the one who claims to be from my bedroom. :P pabook.net

5th November 2003, 05:49	#30
ShyShy Amazon Bush Woman Forum Queen Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Sticks, Queensland Posts: 8,066	And which is why I can bitch about your aim

5th November 2003, 05:51	#31
Sandman2012 <3 foobar2k (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,203	I apologize profusely for not thinking clearly at the height of climax. Perhaps if you weren't watching TV during the act I could concentrate... pabook.net

5th November 2003, 05:53	#32
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	Armegeddon! ARMEGEDDON!!! hrm. some folks aren't going to get that reference. hamsters? ...a blatant person.

5th November 2003, 05:53	#34
Xerxes Capitalist Alumni Join Date: May 2000 Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place Posts: 8,688	What a saucy exchange! (And I mean saucy in both senses of the word)

5th November 2003, 05:56	#35
ShyShy Amazon Bush Woman Forum Queen Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Sticks, Queensland Posts: 8,066	Yeah, you can enjoy it, Xerxes, you're not the one who has to wash the silk sheets. Do you know how hard it is to get stains out of those?

5th November 2003, 06:01	#37
ShyShy Amazon Bush Woman Forum Queen Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Sticks, Queensland Posts: 8,066	That was lame, Sandman. whack Next?

5th November 2003, 06:05	#38
Sandman2012 <3 foobar2k (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,203	Yeah, those were lame. My delivery is much better in person. pabook.net

5th November 2003, 06:07	#39
BullGawD Cool Guy. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 2,122	snicker ...a blatant person.

5th November 2003, 11:36	#40
ryan not fucked, not quite. (Forum King) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Missouri via Tennessee Posts: 8,813	Or it could come from decades ago when a woman just showing her ankles was considered 'inappropriate'.. Now.. back on topic.. or yeah something.. NO MORE SPOOGE JOKES

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode