CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Equality in Nudity(?)
For starters, I am posting this as a result of a story I read about the proposed New Hampshire bill that would make it a misdemeanor for a woman to expose her nipple in public (only targets women).
Do you believe that women should be able to be topless within the same situations as men, or no, and why?
Sure, why not? Or, make it illegal for men to be shirtless in public.
The problem here is this idea that's ingrained in our minds that men physically don't have the self-control to be around a topless woman, but women have the self-control to be around topless men. It's definitely sexist, and demeaning to both genders.
A few things. One, that would only be a temporary issue, I think. If we as a society became more accepting of women being topless, we would gradually desexualize nipples and potentially breasts as a whole, at least to an extent.
Two, do you really think it's right that we relegate women to legal inequality simply because we don't want to feel awkward?
Three, that sort of state of awkward arousal can exist for women as well within comparable situations. Should we therefore make it illegal for us men to be shirtless?
People will get tired of breast... Riiiight. Chicken nor mammalian.
Tired? Not necessarily. They'll calm the fuck down over them, however. It has happened before, it will happen again.
No I don't think it is right, but we need to protect the children.
...From the organs that fed them?
Women don't get boners.
What is that supposed to be prove? Women can get aroused, that arousal manifests physically, and it can be sufficiently awkward for them within the same context that was being discussed.
That's not the context. I did not mean that the men with boners will feel awkward because of their boners, but others will feel awkward around other's boners. Or are you saying that we make protruding erections a norm as well?
Why don't we just make sex in public , acceptable?
I'm sure those adolescent teens will grow out of it. We all know that young people get boners all the time at the smallest things, they always... mostly grow out of it.
Hmm, I suppose they never stop. Random boners are normal for men, I rephrase my argument to "they eventually learn to control it"
But generally arousal occurs from the potential for sex. When you learn you can't shag a lady with her tits out, it'll just become normalized. An excellent case is the rarity of boners at a nude beach. (From matured adults)
I believe women should be able to go topless if they want to. It's already okay if it's a form of protest since that is considered free speech. I don't understand why it's wrong when they are just laying on the beach or walking down the street.
Some people find feet sexually arousing. Some people the tight clothing around toned muscles. I don't believe these should be banned, why go a step further and ban the nipple? They aren't a potential risk of disease like the genitalia.
I suppose when we look at creating or breaking laws, we assess the effects they have on the overall freedom of people. Does the nipple oppress people's freedoms? Are they oppressed more than having 50% of the population banned from being shirtless?
No for societies that regard female breasts as sexually arousing, there is no practical need for these societies to alter this prohibition. There is no repression of freedom involved in covering female breasts. Women's rights groups are NOT calling for nipple acceptance. I will predict that if most of the women in our society suddenly decided to go topless men would quickly insist on an exemption for their mothers, wives and daughters, as well as several ugly females to be identified later.
No for societies that regard female breasts as sexually arousing, there is no practical need for these societies to alter this prohibition.
Women find shirtless men sexually arousing. If that is the logic you are going to use, why should it not be applied equally? Additionally, part of the goal of this would be to desexualize breasts.
It's like saying that because men once found ankles provocative, there was no reason to make it legal for them to wear shorts.
There is no repression of freedom involved in covering female breasts.
Objectively there is. You might find it justified, but there is still a repression of freedom.
Women's rights groups are NOT calling for nipple acceptance
Have you missed the entire "Free the Nipple* campaign? It has been going on for a long time.
I will predict that if most of the women in our society suddenly decided to go topless men would quickly insist on an exemption for their mothers, wives and daughters, as well as several ugly females to be identified later.
And those men would be small minded morons attempting to exert control over the women in their lives.
You knew when you typed this that a shirtless man, and a woman's breasts are not comparable. Women's breasts are viewed as sexual appendages, as you have seemingly admitted in your counter-rebuttal to daver regarding this post. Additionally, a women
A man's sexual preferences are not equal to that of a woman's, and the sexual responses elicited when exposed to certain anatomical appendages or structures are also not equal. This is to say that women are not as wishful for the revelation of a man's chest as in the case of the inverse.
/
All that aside, the thought of desexulaizing breasts in America is nothing more than a wishful endeavor. The litany of factors contributing to the sexualization of anatomical appendages cannot be pragmatically altered.
Further, the anatomical desexualization must come first lest there be unintended consequences. For example, breasts: If women going topless were legalized, without the desexulization preceding the law, then cases of sexual harassment (and potentially rape) would dramatically increase.
In addition to harassment, for your logic (regarding equality) to hold, you would need to extend these topless rights to underaged girls, which would have dramatic legal implications as voyeuristic photographers would grant easy access to underaged (photographic) porn - another legal structure that need be reformed under these conditions - as simply capturing a photo of a person, without their awareness, is not a difficult task.
You knew when you typed this that a shirtless man, and a woman's breasts are not comparable. Women's breasts are viewed as sexual appendages, as you have seemingly admitted in your counter-rebuttal to daver regarding this post.
I also knew that by desexualizing breasts it would become comparable. That's kind of the entire point.
Additionally, a women
A man's sexual preferences are not equal to that of a woman's, and the sexual responses elicited when exposed to certain anatomical appendages or structures are also not equal. This is to say that women are not as wishful for the revelation of a man's chest as in the case of the inverse.
Which, again, goes back to my entire point about desexualizing breasts.
All that aside, the thought of desexulaizing breasts in America is nothing more than a wishful endeavor. The litany of factors contributing to the sexualization of anatomical appendages cannot be pragmatically altered.
It really isn't. Breasts are nowhere near as stigmatized in other parts of the world, such as Italy or France where bare breasts are not considered "indecent". If it is possible elsewhere, why would it not be possible here?
Further, the anatomical desexualization must come first lest there be unintended consequences. For example, breasts: If women going topless were legalized, without the desexulization preceding the law, then cases of sexual harassment (and potentially rape) would dramatically increase.
You have an astoundingly low opinion of men, apparently.
In addition to harassment, for your logic (regarding equality) to hold, you would need to extend these topless rights to underaged girls, which would have dramatic legal implications as voyeuristic photographers would grant easy access to underaged (photographic) porn - another legal structure that need be reformed under these conditions - as simply capturing a photo of a person, without their awareness, is not a difficult task.
Indeed, it would open a vary interesting conversation about the nature of sexualizing children, which is a conversation I believe we as a society need t ohave.
I also knew that by desexualizing breasts it would become comparable. That's kind of the entire point.
You are tacitly admitting that desexualizing breasts is not an accomplishable task since shirtless men, as you claim, elicit sexual responses from women - yet men have been shirtless in America for centuries and still their shirtlessness remains sexualized.
So, why, then, do believe that exploiting women's breasts will have the inverse effect?
It really isn't. Breasts are nowhere near as stigmatized in other parts of the world, such as Italy or France where bare breasts are not considered "indecent". If it is possible elsewhere, why would it not be possible here?
Reforming an entire culture's sexual proclivities is an extremely outlandish idea. This is not a matter of fashion, which can be easily molded through mass marketing, this is sexual attraction.
Furthermore, you cannot justly compare distinct cultures and assert that because one has a certain norm, the other could also adopt such norm.
Also, Italy and France both have a sexualized view of breasts. It's just not considered indecent for a woman to expose them.
You have an astoundingly low opinion of men, apparently.
No, you have a scaringly delusional high opinion of men. My assumption that cases of harassment will increase is based on statistics. Namely, the rate at which sexual harassment occurs.
Indeed, it would open a vary interesting conversation about the nature of sexualizing children, which is a conversation I believe we as a society need t ohave.
A conversation that will lead nowhere as pedophillia is a psychological condition which is not caused through societal sexualzation of children; pedophilles are naturally predisposed to have a sexualized view of children.
Given that pedophillia cannot be fixed, having topless female minors anywhere legitimates a new market for photographers (professional or otherwise) - even those who have no sexual desires for children.
And I might add that topless preteen photos are in demand in almost every country with access to the global internet, i.e., countries that allow communication with sites from countries other than themselves. So legalizing it only exacerbates this problem.
While I understand the optimism, the thought of reforming 375 million people's sexual ideology is just nonsensical. Almost as nonsensical as getting an entire country to sexualize overweightness.
You are tacitly admitting that desexualizing breasts is not an accomplishable task since shirtless men, as you claim, elicit sexual responses from women - yet men have been shirtless in America for centuries and still their shirtlessness remains sexualized.
It is far more nuanced than that. We could never fully desexualize breasts, but we could destygmatize them. An example is a town I lived in for a little while, Eugene, Oregon, where it is legal for both men and women to be shirtless. They have a country fair where men and women regularly walk around topless. Do some people find that arousing? Yes. Did it cause a full blown orgy, or prevent people from going about their business? Not at all.
Reforming an entire culture's sexual proclivities is an extremely outlandish idea.
It happens all the damn time.
This is not a matter of fashion, which can be easily molded through mass marketing, this is sexual attraction.
Furthermore, you cannot justly compare distinct cultures and assert that because one has a certain norm, the other could also adopt such norm.
Which is exactly why I focused on two different cultures that exist within the same cultural group (Western) and share many of the same characteristics. If it is possible for one, then it is absurd to say it is impossible for the other. That isn't to say that because it is possible for one then it is just as feasible for the other.
Also, Italy and France both have a sexualized view of breasts. It's just not considered indecent for a woman to expose them.
Reread what I said. I said they have been destygmatized, not desexualized. Men still find them attractive, but don't freak out over them like they do here.
No, you have a scaringly delusional high opinion of men. My assumption that cases of harassment will increase is based on statistics. Namely, the rate at which sexual harassment occurs.
Please, provide the statistics that you believe back up your claim that if women were allowed to be topless, sexual assault and rape would skyrocket. It sure hasn't in multiple places here in the United States where it is legal.
A conversation that will lead nowhere as pedophillia is a psychological condition which is not caused through societal sexualzation of children; pedophilles are naturally predisposed to have a sexualized view of children.
I am confused by the relevance. I am not talking about a conversation on the nature of pedophilia, I am talking about a conversation on how we as a society attribute sexual characteristics to children.
Given that pedophillia cannot be fixed, having topless female minors anywhere legitimates a new market for photographers (professional or otherwise) - even those who have no sexual desires for children.
So do you have an issue with young boys being allowed to not wear shirts for the same reason?
And I might add that topless preteen photos are in demand in almost every country with access to the global internet, i.e., countries that allow communication with sites from countries other than themselves. So legalizing it only exacerbates this problem.
Then for the moment one could rather easily limit it to the age of adulthood.
While I understand the optimism, the thought of reforming 375 million people's sexual ideology is just nonsensical. Almost as nonsensical as getting an entire country to sexualize overweightness.
Right, it's not like we we haven't done it before with ankles, legs, and multiple other parts of the female body.
We could never fully desexualize breasts, but we could destygmatize them.
So you at least admit that you faulted in your argument, as 'destigmatize' and 'desexualize' are entirely distinct terms.
They have a country fair where men and women regularly walk around topless. Do some people find that arousing? Yes. Did it cause a full blown orgy, or prevent people from going about their business? Not at all.
The fallacious orgy example aside; this entire situation may befit the county from which this norm spawned, however, subcultural norms are not always transferable to the greater populace.
Moreover, the crux of my argument, which is in accordance with your original argument, is premised on desexulization, not destigmatization.
It happens all the damn time.
An example? Note, I am referring to the reformation of an entire society’s sexual preference. Also, remember, this is about desexualization, i.e., taking away the sexual aspect of...
Which is exactly why I focused on two different cultures that exist within the same cultural group (Western) and share many of the same characteristics.
Perhaps you misunderstood my point: comparing two proximate cultures - both that have numerable similarities - to an entirely separate culture (Eastern), and suggesting that their norms could easily be adopted by said entirely different culture is what I considered unjust.
Further, I never claimed that such a process - the transference of cultural norms - was 'impossible'.
Reread what I said. I said they have been destygmatized, not desexualized. Men still find them attractive, but don't freak out over them like they do here.
It is a bit challenging to rebut your arguments accurately when my disputes reference desexualization, and your counter-disputes reference stigmatization (again, you advanced your argument on desexulization).
Please, provide the statistics that you believe back up your claim that if women were allowed to be topless, sexual assault and rape would skyrocket. It sure hasn't in multiple places here in the United States where it is legal.
First, I never claimed, objectively, that elevated harassment would ensue from such reform - I claimed that it was a reasonable assumption. Additionally, I was mainly linking my assumption with locations where going topless is not allowed (hence if it is legalized, the spontaneous reform could have unwanted implications); and, the fact that women who wear provocative, revealing apparel, are sexually harassed disproportionately compared to the inverse (understand that sexual harassment is manifested in various forms. For example, 'catcalling', or any verbalized sexual reference is legally considered sexual harassment).
Secondly, the locations of which you speak have profound contingencies as to where, and under what conditions, can women be topless.
I am confused by the relevance. I am not talking about a conversation on the nature of pedophilia, I am talking about a conversation on how we as a society attribute sexual characteristics to children.
Now I am muddled as to the relevance, and the purpose of that conversation... As per this topic: if you believe that women being topless is the same as men being topless, then your belief would necessarily extend to underage girls; and if that happens, you now legally grant a market for underage, photographic porn. As per your next suggestion (age limitation), you are advocating that which you perceive as inequality.
So, unless you intend on having underage girls going topless (which I already explained the natural corollary of doing so), or requiring underage boys to not be publicly topless, then your theoretical reform still advances, or maintains, gender inequality.
Right, it's not like we we haven't done it before with ankles, legs, and multiple other parts of the female body.
Even in those archaic instances breasts, vaginas, and buttocks were still the most anatomically sexual locations. So it is slightly fallacious to suggest that desexualizing a sexually functional appendage, such as breasts, is highly possible since a nonsexually functional joint, such as the ankle, was (supposedly) desexualized.
For clarification: Sexual functionality defines a part of the human body which serves, or can serve, a sexual purpose. For example: You cannot do much with an ankle that will (physically) sexually stimulate both parties; however, breasts have features which can sexually stimulate both parties - the nerves in the nipple being the primary stimulator for the women, while the physiology of the breasts, if utilized correctly, can stimulate the man's phallus.
(I will also assume that the situation of which you speak had a biblical context, however this is merely an assumption.)
/
I have not mentioned this yet but there are also studies indicating that heterosexual men are biologically programmed to be attracted to breasts. (Source)
So you at least admit that you faulted in your argument, as 'destigmatize' and 'desexualize' are entirely distinct terms.
I left out a word that you have latched onto, I admit that.
Subcultural norms are not always transferable to the greater populace. The fallacious orgy example aside; this entire situation may befit the county from which this norm spawned, however, subcultural norms are not always transferable to the greater populace.
I never said they are always transferable, I said that the existence of my chance undermines your insinuation that it would be impossible here.
Moreover, the crux of my argument, which is in accordance with your original argument, is premised on desexulization, not destigmatization.
My original argument didn't include either. My original comment to you mistakenly left out "partially", and you have latched onto that despite the clarification. No idea why.
An example? Note, I am referring to the reformation of an entire society’s sexual preference. Also, remember, this is about desexualization, i.e., taking away the sexual aspect of...
What you are referring to is nonsense. Destygmatizing and partially desexualizing breasts does not reform an entire society's sexual preference, it simply reworks the sexual associations. As I have previously said, it is akin to the ankle bans of old.
Perhaps you misunderstood my point: comparing two proximate cultures - both that have numerable similarities - to an entirely separate culture (Eastern), and suggesting that their norms could easily be adopted by said entirely different culture is what I considered unjust.
I made no comparison to any Eastern culture. I specifically compared two Western cultures for that exact reason.
Further, I never claimed that such a process - the transference of cultural norms - was 'impossible'.
"All that aside, the thought of desexulaizing breasts in America is nothing more than a wishful endeavor. The litany of factors contributing to the sexualization of anatomical appendages cannot be pragmatically altered."
What were you trying to convey by calling it "nothing more than a wishful endeavor", then?
It is a bit challenging to rebut your arguments accurately when my disputes reference desexualization, and your counter-disputes reference stigmatization (again, you advanced your argument on desexulization).
Then maybe you will realize the futility in latching onto an original argument after a clarification has been made.
First, I never claimed, objectively, that elevated harassment would ensue from such reform - I claimed that it was a reasonable assumption.
Then provide evidence that you believe makes such an assumption reasonable. Additionally:
"If women going topless were legalized, without the desexulization preceding the law, then cases of sexual harassment (and potentially rape) would dramatically increase. "
You didn't claim it was a reasonable assumption, you said it would happen.
Additionally, I was mainly linking my assumption with locations where going topless is not allowed (hence if it is legalized, the spontaneous reform could have unwanted implications); and, the fact that women who wear provocative, revealing apparel, are sexually harassed disproportionately compared to the inverse (understand that sexual harassment is manifested in various forms.
The more reasonable approach would be to look at places where it is legalized.
Secondly, the locations of which you speak have profound contingencies as to where, and under what conditions, can women be topless.
You sure about that? Having lived in Eugene, women were allowed to be topless around town without being confronted by cops. We even had a woman who was known for biking across town shirtless during the morning commute. It also wasn't uncommon to see women sunbathing shirtless in public parks. Interestingly, they weren't harassed or assaulted.
Now I am muddled as to the relevance, and the purpose of that conversation... As per this topic: if you believe that women being topless is the same as men being topless, then your belief would necessarily extend to underage girls; and if that happens, you now legally grant a market for underage, photographic porn.
First, calling it porn is part of the conversation that I am talking about. Second, said market already exists for young boys. If you are concerned about that market, shouldn't you be seeking to make it illegal for all young children to be shirtless?
As per your next suggestion (age limitation), you are advocating that which you are you perceive as inequality.
How so? If we held the exact same standards for children and adults of both genders, there wouldn't be an inequality.
So, unless you intend on having underage girls going topless (which I already explained the natural corollary of doing so), or requiring underage boys to not be publically topless, then your theoretical reform still advances, or maintains, gender inequality.
Interesting how you ignored the question I asked you which implied the same treatment should theoretically be given towards male minors.
Even in those archaic instances breasts, vaginas, and buttocks were still the most anatomically sexual locations.
Saying most seems to imply that you recognize the parts in question were sexualized, which seems to imply that you agree body parts that are sexualized can be destygmatized.
So it is slightly fallacious to suggest that desexualizing a sexually functional appendage, such as breasts, is highly possible since a nonsexually functional joint, such as the ankle, was (supposedly) desexualized.
The fact that we consider it a sexual appendage is the entire damn point of this, Harvard. Within a colloquial sense, there is nothing inherently sexual about breasts. Within a biological sense, the sexual aspects of breasts comes in the form of providing food for offspring, which is by no means a justification for legally forcing them to be covered.
For clarification: Sexual functionality defines a part of the human body which serves, or can serve, a sexual purpose. For example: You cannot do much with an ankle that will (physically) sexually stimulate both parties; however, breasts have features which can sexually stimulate both parties - the nerves in the nipple being the primary stimulator for the women, while the physiology of the breasts, if utilized correctly, can stimulate the man's phallus.
The neck can be sexually stimulated for both parties, and is one of the most common erogenous zones (again, for both sexes). Do I hear legally mandated turtle necks coming?
Hands, if utilized correctly, can sexually stimulate both male and female genitalia, and do so far more frequently than breasts. How about legally mandated gloves?
I have not mentioned this yet but there are also studies suggesting that heterosexual men are biologically programmed to be attracted to breasts. (Source)
It is an interesting idea, but is by no means an "end all" to the conversation. In situations where bared breasts are a social norm (such as nude beaches, or the fair that I mentioned), the sight of bare breasts becomes normalized for the men involved, which reduces (if not negates) the sexual association within that situation.
That isn't to say that men would stop being attracted to breasts, but why would it need to? Men are still attracted to legs, but we don't consider attraction to be sufficient reason for requiring people to cover up.
I never said they are always transferable, I said that the existence of my chance undermines your insinuation that it would be impossible here.
I, again, never claimed impossibility; rather, I am suggesting that a national legalization of toplessness among females - which, if you are advocating equality, includes minors - would have profound ramifications (especially since breasts are (unnecessarily or otherwise) a deeply sexual anatomical structure).
My original argument didn't include either. My original comment to you mistakenly left out "partially", and you have latched onto that despite the clarification. No idea why.
I'm referencing your original argument to daver; and you are admitting, again, that you falted with your words, or lack thereof (and words, and their meaning, are especially crucial in debates).
Further, my perceived 'latching' is due to the fact that my contention with your position was premised on Desexualizing that which cannot be desexualized.
What were you trying to convey by calling it "nothing more than a wishful endeavor", then?
Because desexualizing breasts is impossible - as you have also admitted and since then appended 'destygmatization' to your position - the idea that it can be done is a mere wishful one. Also, oddly, this nowise relates to my statement: the transference of cultural norms...
Then maybe you will realize the futility in latching onto an original argument after a clarification has been made.
Firstly, the clarification of which you speak was not immediate; and you actually did not clarify, you disputed me while weaving a new term into your argument - which significantly altered your entire position - to which I noted.
Secondly, I suppose you have learned the consequences of arguing with intellectual laziness; and perhaps next time will be cautious with the terminology and phraseology you use when making arguments that are crucial to conveying your point.
You didn't claim it was a reasonable assumption, you said it would happen.
"No, you have a scaringly delusional high opinion of men. My assumption that cases of harassment will increase is based on statistics. Namely, the rate at which sexual harassment occurs." - This is the proper post to quote because this was the statement that you refuted, which led to this discussion.
Interesting how you ignored the question I asked you which implied the same treatment should theoretically be given towards male minors.
If that was the actual implication, which I did not interpret it to be, then I will acknowledge my misinterpretation.
You sure about that? Having lived in Eugene, women were allowed to be topless around town without being confronted by cops. We even had a woman who was known for biking across town shirtless during the morning commute. It also wasn't uncommon to see women sunbathing shirtless in public parks. Interestingly, they weren't harassed or assaulted.
My position is strictly a legal one. Persons who choose to disobey a law, which has no legal ramifications and thus the reason they disobey it, depends on the area. For example, jaywalking in New York is legally intolerable (with a hefty fine if caught), conversely jaywalking in North Dakota, while illegal, is tolerated with no consequences if caught.
Also, the State (Oregon) of which you speak has contingencies as to where you can and cannot be nude (as I previously said); for example, you will be arrested in Portland for being nude in public; likewise you can only be nude in certain areas in Eugene.
The more reasonable approach would be to look at places where it is legalized.
Again, jaywalking in North Dakota is illegal but tolerated[1] - largely because there are barely any accidents that are consequences of said action. One could suggest it be nationally legalized, then, since the it not that hazardous of a task. However, if this was legalized in New York, given the convoluted traffic, such legalization would have significant unintended consequences; and, in order to deduce this assumption, you must assess the states in which such a law is enforced.
[1] For simplicity, this statement in the analogy assumes that jaywalking is legal in North Dakota.
First, calling it porn is part of the conversation that I am talking about.
That too is a fruitless conversation as their are legal definitions of porn. Moreover, these definitions are premised on sexual responses - and since breasts are intrinsically sexual, having them revealed on minors (and exploiting such revelation) would, by definition, render it porn - and to take sexuality out of the definition of porn neglects the entire reason for porn.
Second, said market already exists for young boys. If you are concerned about that market, shouldn't you be seeking to make it illegal for all young children to be shirtless?
Again, breasts are intrinsically sexual, unlike a boy's chest; this is why allowing boys to be topless but not girls is a more rational, formal norm. This is also why you will occasionally see a 5 year old girl topless (perhaps a parent changing her top) and it not be a problem because she has not yet developed breasts.
The neck can be sexually stimulated for both parties, and is one of the most common erogenous zones (again, for both sexes). Do I hear legally mandated turtle necks coming?
I am referencing the specific erogenous zones (e.g., genitalia, breasts) - connected with the reward system; not nonspecific zones (the areas of which speak).
Saying most seems to imply that you recognize the parts in question were sexualized, which seems to imply that you agree body parts that are sexualized can be destygmatized.
The parts of which I am speaking are intrinsically sexual and cannot be otherwise.
The fact that we consider it a sexual appendage is the entire damn point of this, Harvard. Within a colloquial sense, there is nothing inherently sexual about breasts.
We consider it a sexual appendage because it is, and not only for the reasons you asserted - being 'breast feeding'. Nipples are apart of specific erogenous zones, along with the vagina and phallus; and the same reasons we consider vaginas and phalluses sexual appendages, logically, are the same reasons we consider breasts sexaul appendages: Each appendage or body part elicits and receives, both aesthetically and physically, profound levels of sexual arousal (unlike the nonspecific erogenous zones, such as the neck).
In situations where bared breasts are a social norm (such as nude beaches, or the fair that I mentioned), the sight of bare breasts becomes normalized for the men involved, which reduces (if not negates) the sexual association within that situation.
The fact that breasts are intrinsically sexual; and that heterosexual men are biologically programmed to be attracted to them; renders you point as to 'sexual association' nonsensical at best. If breasts have an intrinsic sexaul function, how then can you disassociate sexuality with them?
That isn't to say that men would stop being attracted to breasts, but why would it need to? Men are still attracted to legs, but we don't consider attraction to be sufficient reason for requiring people to cover up.
It appears that you insist on conflating breasts, which serve an intrinsic sexual purpose, with bodily features which serve no intrinsic sexual purpose. I will admit defeat in that I cannot think of another way of explaining how 'breasts' and 'ankles'--or legs, or knuckles--share no relation. I tried explaining the obvious anatomical differences, which you seemingly accept, but you refuse to desist from using the breast-ankle comparison in you responses.