It's not a phase that humanity should "grow out of", it's just the basis of physical attraction among our species.

Seems like something to grow out of to me.

What exactly does this contribute to the conversation? The "precedents [which] contribute to our codifications of norm(s)" are the sex-selection of certain traits among mates.

It does not preclude the topic by implying that nothing else needs to be known, that we already have all the answers (though we haven't stated what they are). The precedents which contribute to our codifications of norms are not only judgments of biological fitness, they're the dynamics of that complex biological refrain which are influenced by history, religion, and culture. These additional contexts elucidate why we attribute labels of shame to nudity rather than assuming shame is merely natural and we should accept it.

We don't find large breasts and full hips attractive because the media says so, the media says so because we find those traits attractive.

Culture impacts the selection of mates too, however. This can be observed with tooth-blackening in Heian era Japan, lip-disks among the Kayapo in Para Brazil today, etc. These things confer advantages to humans beyond physical attractions as selective attributes. Media is an extension of mainstream culture and we are constantly exposed to it now. While I agree that there are general fitness traits with universal appeal, the fluidity of culture similarly gives rise to differential selective traits endemic to that culture.

The implication of the argument that humans' biological impulses are implacable and fixed in time strikes me as outdated considering the influence of cultural factors. It takes our social precedents for granted and models us off of simpler organisms lacking our social complexity. I don't think it's representative of how we actually operate.

It's not a phase that humanity should "grow out of", it's just the basis of physical attraction among our species.

In my earlier post I meant to say we should grow out of feeling shameful of our sexuality, not out of sexuality altogether. I would not be opposed to trying the latter, however. In regard to that I admitted that would be another complicated process, something I don't think operant conditioning could easily solve. I'm not really sure if it could be done completely, but it would interesting to try.

Murder of the highest degree is showed and flaunted in many major games and movies.
Gruesome and grotesque shiz.
 BUT, boobs are censored...lol

Not in games and movies, they aren't.

Maybe on television, but even television will censor particularly gruesome scenes in movies.

Murder of the highest degree is showed and flaunted in many major games and movies.
Gruesome and grotesque shiz.
 BUT, boobs are censored...lol

Cable television
one of the American Pie movies
1 in the afternoon
tits and nipples all over the screen

This is the kind of filth that I come home from work to find my dog watching on the tv while grandpa's asleep.

Quote from: HollowedTurkey on May 04, 2016, 01:44:40 PM

It's not a phase that humanity should "grow out of", it's just the basis of physical attraction among our species.

Seems like something to grow out of to me.

Why? Who cares? Oversexualization of a feature can obviously be seen as a problem, and is something that I can argue should be corrected. But to actually make an attempt to condition people to literally not think that inherently sexual parts of our bodies are appealing is ridiculous. And I can't see anything very beneficial coming out of trying to shame people for being physically attracted to another person.

How much do you think men are distracted by a girl's tits? Does it impede conversation? Can they not function properly if a girl has a nice rack? For the vast majority of men, all they do is think "Wow, nice boobs," and then continue on with whatever we were doing; whether or not it had anything to do with interacting with that girl. It's a subconscious attraction, we're not mentally handicapped when a girl with nice tits is around us.

Quote from: Verbatim on May 03, 2016, 05:08:50 PM

Because that shit doesn't belong anywhere else. It probably shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is, and maybe that's merely the result of having a tattoo for such a long time, but I'm personally glad that it's generally frowned upon. Less sex, the better.

How come? I'm interested in hearing what you think of sex as a whole. While I think it can be a bit too excessive and graphic, I don't think it's something that should be overly censored, reproduction is part of the life cycle.

He wants us all to die, in short.