You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: No Victim, No Crime. Right!?
Thanks for this interesting post, from the voluntarist and anarchist viewpoint.
I wonder if you might have some thoughts on this, from an evolutionary psychology angle. Is there a difference between female breasts and genitals, from this perspective, or are they in the same category?
Great question.
Well, I think there's little doubt that most men and many women find many female breasts to be arousing, at least under the right circumstances. And, I suppose there's some evolutionary component to that, or at least it seems likely. This conclusion is somewhat supported by the research on the subject.
But the same is also true in the opposite direction: Many women are as aroused by a burly, muscular exposed man-chest as men are by exposed female breasts.
Whether we've evolved to find these things arousing or not probably doesn't matter. I suppose the real question for society is whether the fact that some people find certain body parts arousing makes those body parts "indecent". After all, many find hands, feet, legs, ears, buttocks, necks, stomachs, hips and even faces to be arousing. Is it my problem the you find my legs arousing? Should I be forced to cover myself so you don't become aroused? If so, why? And, if not, then how/why are female areola qualitatively different from my legs or male areola? These are the questions that advocates of these laws need to answer.
But, there are no principled answers to such questions. Singling out women's areola for regulation is simply another form of male oppression and female shaming.
For me it's backs...