News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by Igelau on Friday October 09, 2020 @06:33PM (#24735113)
Seriously. Sometimes I think everything wrong with America would gradually settle down if we could just collectively disillusion ourselves from the notion that human female nipples are an indecent horrid thing.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by eden_hazard on Friday October 09, 2020 @06:37PM (#24735133)
Cause everyone being naked is the pinnacle of society?
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by ben_w on Friday October 09, 2020 @06:51PM (#24735214)
The more I think about it, the weirder becomes the fact that the one and only part of human anatomy that is specifically made to go into a baby’s mouth is a sex symbol.

If it had been men’s nipples, which are otherwise useless, that had been sexualised, that would’ve been much less weird; but it’s fine for me to go around topless and nobody cares.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by thaumasiotes on Friday October 09, 2020 @07:05PM (#24735318)
It's a pretty standard type of signal. Only females nurse -> nipples are a signal of being female. Females are sexually interesting -> nipples excite sexual interest, because they are indicators of femaleness.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by eyelidlessness on Friday October 09, 2020 @08:44PM (#24735810)
It would be, but that's not the signal.

Men conflate women's sexuality with child rearing to control women > men insist women cover voluptuous body parts > men exploit women's sexuality with modesty constraint for additional power and control > men decide women's nipples are hidden = modesty, and sexualize women's nipples > nipples somehow mean something different if they're attached to a woman

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by thaumasiotes on Friday October 09, 2020 @08:56PM (#24735877)
Your theory fails to explain why women have breasts.

(Compare monkeys, which don't.)

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by Igelau on Friday October 09, 2020 @10:14PM (#24736248)
If I had to guess, compared to other primates it takes human young too long to be any good for anything. Permanent breasts would make cross-nursing more feasible in the event that a mother died or couldn't produce enough during scarcity.

No sources or background, just throwing darts at a plausible "the ones who didn't died" scenario.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by thaumasiotes on Friday October 09, 2020 @11:26PM (#24736494)
> Permanent breasts would make cross-nursing more feasible in the event that a mother died or couldn't produce enough during scarcity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Most mammals do fine with nipples and no breasts, whether they're nursing or not. And women lactate after giving birth; they can't do it on command.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by ben_w on Saturday October 10, 2020 @03:54AM (#24737311)
On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to be “oh no nudity” if a woman wears a very skimpy bra that only covers their nipples and fully exposes the rest of their breasts.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by thaumasiotes on Saturday October 10, 2020 @02:34PM (#24740885)
Most people do consider that nudity. It's usually done to work around laws, not to "work around" public opinion.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by eyelidlessness on Friday October 09, 2020 @09:36PM (#24736087)
Men have breasts. Also, my "theory" doesn't need to explain why women have breasts?
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by autokad on Friday October 09, 2020 @07:55PM (#24735592)
to me its no surprise at all.

there are good articles and youtube videos on why woman's boobs are sexy.

the common denominator is that in all societies all boobs are considered sexy. lindybeige's channel suggested it may have to do with some sort of trickery. ie the woman wants to be protected so they are always 'full' unlike other animals.

I think the fact that they are considered sexy across all cultures regardless of shape/size tells us something obvious. they are to show the woman is of mating age.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by ben_w on Saturday October 10, 2020 @04:23AM (#24737444)
I mean specifically the nipples, not the entire boob. It isn’t considered nudity (at least in the places I’ve been) for a woman to expose any part of their breast except the nipple itself. That (plus men’s nipples being so boring nobody even thinks to mention them) is what I find weird.

That does raise one obvious question: is the cultural difference (1) a real difference of sexualisation of body parts, or (2) does the average [†] hetero women look at topless men the same way that the average [†] hereto man looks at topless women, but society as a whole hasn’t noticed because it is male-dominated and not enough men in power ask women?

{As an aside: In the context lindybeige would be an example of argument from authority fallacy; expecting him to be right about comparative global sexuality is like expecting sexplanations to be right about comparing the relative merits of ancient Athenian and Persian armour.

That doesn’t mean he must be wrong (if I said that I world be making the fallacy fallacy), but surely there is a better example to use than him?}

[†] to emphasise: average as in “no I can’t just ask my exes that would be anecdotes”

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by leetcrew on Saturday October 10, 2020 @11:03AM (#24739441)
> I mean specifically the nipples, not the entire boob. It isn’t considered nudity (at least in the places I’ve been) for a woman to expose any part of their breast except the nipple itself. That (plus men’s nipples being so boring nobody even thinks to mention them) is what I find weird.

there are a lot of situations where it would be considered inappropriate for a woman to expose most of a breast (though perhaps not nudity, per se). the degree of coverage socially required for a man or a woman varies a lot. like if I wore cargo shorts to work, it would merely be against the dress code. if I wore only a speedo (or a woman wore a bikini), it would be inappropriate.

once you've decided you have to make and enforce rules about nudity, you need to make them unambiguous. "cannot show nipple" is a lot less ambiguous than "most cover most of breast". "must cover entire breast" is also fraught; how do you decide exactly where it begins? if you agree that female breasts are sexual features, it doesn't seem that weird that nipples would be where the line is finally drawn.

just for the record, I don't think the world would end if women could expose their breasts without repercussions.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by op03 on Saturday October 10, 2020 @05:59AM (#24737835)
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by xkcd-sucks on Friday October 09, 2020 @11:15PM (#24736458)
To be fair, basically every body part can be sexy (on an attractive ~= reproductive age person). Hair, feet, thighs, face, eyes, back, etc
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by Lio on Saturday October 10, 2020 @04:08AM (#24737366)
I remember reading a Desmond Morris book that put forward the theory that female human breasts developed, unlike those of other animals, to mimic the sexualised female bum and encourage the missionary during sex.

The theory is that this aids with conception.

...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that. ;)

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by ben_w on Saturday October 10, 2020 @01:01PM (#24740267)
> ...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that. ;)

Fair enough, I walked right into that one. :P

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by saagarjha on Saturday October 10, 2020 @04:33AM (#24737484)
> ...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that

Citation needed.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by tshaddox on Friday October 09, 2020 @06:58PM (#24735271)
You’re using a definition of “naked” that depends on your particular societal views, so that’s a circular question. Most people don’t where clothing over their hands in public, but you probably don’t call that “naked.” What reason is there to cover one’s nipples unless it’s for comfort, protection, or warmth?
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by krapp on Friday October 09, 2020 @07:01PM (#24735291)
>What reason is there to cover one’s nipples unless it’s for comfort, protection, or warmth?

Several thousand years of Judeo-Christian cultural indoctrination teaching that because Eve tempted Adam into original sin, women and their bodies are inherently unclean and can lead men astray, and thus are to be treated as taboo.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by reaperducer on Sunday October 11, 2020 @09:33AM (#24745648)
Several thousand years of Judeo-Christian cultural indoctrination teaching that because Eve tempted Adam into original sin, women and their bodies are inherently unclean and can lead men astray, and thus are to be treated as taboo.

This was going on long before Judeo-Christianity existed, and in almost every single culture on the planet before each made contact with the first Christian.

Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by krapp on Sunday October 11, 2020 @07:16PM (#24749947)
Nevertheless, as far as the Western world is concerned (and the US in particular,) Christianity has been the primary influence on the nature and culture of sexual morality. Almost all of our gender views and stereotypes can be traced back to the Bible in some form or another, among them the prejudice that female sexuality exists to serve men, and that the female body is inherently more vulgar than the male.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by OJFord on Friday October 09, 2020 @08:29PM (#24735753)
I might be agreeing with you, but isn't it just under-specified? To me 'naked' alone = 'no clothes whatsoever'; but 'naked breast' is entirely similar to, yes, 'naked hand'. The latter just having less frequent utility as a phrase, shall we say.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by ves on Friday October 09, 2020 @07:25PM (#24735427)
Something need not be the pinnacle for it to not be horrid.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by krapp on Friday October 09, 2020 @06:45PM (#24735177)
Not caring about it is better than caring about it so much we wind up with robots censoring images of onions lest they offend our Puritan sensibilities with their lascivious roundness.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by carapace on Friday October 09, 2020 @07:57PM (#24735608)
Greek statues.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by Wowfunhappy on Friday October 09, 2020 @06:47PM (#24735188)
...well, I don't. Changing obscenity standards is not going to help us with climate change, for instance, or do much against COVID-19.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by mdifrgechd on Friday October 09, 2020 @07:27PM (#24735438)
This attitude is a real problem for society: leaving outdated laws on the books just because they are not the most pressing issue encourages bureaucracy, a bloated enforcement system, and worst of all selective enforcement that can mean its easier to find a way to punish groups society generally doesn't dislike. I think there should be a regular purge of old laws as we should be deliberately retaining the ones we still feel are relevant. Just because this sort of thing doesnt rise to the level of the crisis de jour is not a reason to ignore it.
Re:Some onions were too sexy for Facebook by Wowfunhappy on Friday October 09, 2020 @11:14PM (#24736456)
Sorry, I was responding to the parent saying:

> I think _everything wrong with America would gradually settle down_ if we could just collectively disillusion ourselves from the notion that human female nipples are an indecent horrid thing.

Emphasis added—I should have re-quoted in my post, as I think it got lost. It's not that our obscenity standards are good or that we should ignore that problem—but it's not going to magically solve everything else too!