SideBoob?

[bn2bnude]

Has anyone noticed that while "nipples" still are worthy of shock, awe and plenty of press, the new shock and awe term of distain for women's (especially celebrities) dress appears to be "Sideboob".

So much so that Huffington Post has a tagged section.

I'm a little perplexed by this... I think it's sort of odd.

[jochanaan]

Has anyone noticed that while "nipples" still are worthy of shock, awe and plenty of press, the new shock and awe term of distain for women's (especially celebrities) dress appears to be "Sideboob".

So much so that Huffington Post has a tagged section.

I'm a little perplexed by this... I think it's sort of odd.

"You delight in making laws. Yet you delight more in breaking them." --Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

[Petros]

Hey, I do languages. I had to drop in and find out what the word was intended to represent.


Ah, well, I remain unenlightened. My own fault - I need more incentive that a quaint neologism to delve into the Huffington Post.

[bn2bnude]

Hey, I do languages. I had to drop in and find out what the word was intended to represent.


Ah, well, I remain unenlightened. My own fault - I need more incentive that a quaint neologism to delve into the Huffington Post.

Boob is slang (and honestly, borderline offensive to me) for breasts. The idiocy revolves around women who wear shirts that allow one to see the breast from the side.

[JimShedd112]

Perhaps the effort is to return us to a time where the body MUST be completely sheathed, like the late 18th/early 19th century. Or, is there an effort to require all women to wear burkhas so as not to incite men into sexual freenzies at the sight of bare skin?

It seems very strange how the more society "evolves" the more repressive it becomes.

Jim

[jochanaan]

Perhaps the effort is to return us to a time where the body MUST be completely sheathe, like the late 18th/early 19th century. Or, is there an effort to require all women to wear burkhas so as not to incite men into sexual freenzies at the sight of bare skin?...

Oh, it's worse still, Jim. The "conspiracy" seems to seek to forbid bodies to be shown--unless they're "glamorous" or "conventionally beautiful"!

[bn2bnude]

Perhaps the effort is to return us to a time where the body MUST be completely sheathe, like the late 18th/early 19th century. Or, is there an effort to require all women to wear burkhas so as not to incite men into sexual freenzies at the sight of bare skin?...

Oh, it's worse still, Jim. The "conspiracy" seems to seek to forbid bodies to be shown--unless they're "glamorous" or "conventionally beautiful"!

Or third world. A discussion from years ago but our censors appear to be racist.

[natman]

It cracks me up (or should I say, "It disturbs me") that every TV show and movie currently has a "gay" or "lesbian" couple or character, that even "cartoons" have characters having sex, implied sex, homosexual sex, interspecial sex (beastiality), commercials feature women with hardly a stitch of clothing on pitching hamburgers or internet services, and that is all "okay". But the news services, including Fox News, get all excited when a celebrity is caught nude, partially nude or in an outfit that exposes a momentary glimps of a cleavage, a partial areola, a nipple or a side of a breast, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with nursing young children.

SAD!

[Larryk1052]

Well if side boob exposure is going to be taboo, then why not top cleavage?? How is the side of the breast more arousing than the top??


Personally, if a woman or a man is to be dressed, then I think the clothing ought to not be distracting in a sexual manner. A woman's breasts do create sexual excitement in most men. Therefore, if clothing is to be worn it shouldn't tease.

[jochanaan]

Well if side boob exposure is going to be taboo, then why not top cleavage?? How is the side of the breast more arousing than the top??


Personally, if a woman or a man is to be dressed, then I think the clothing ought to not be distracting in a sexual manner. A woman's breasts do create sexual excitement in most men. Therefore, if clothing is to be worn it shouldn't tease.

Hmmm...But since I have embraced naturism, I do not find cleavage, decolletage, or "sideboobs" particularly stimulating. I confess to looking more than once--mostly just to ascertain just how much the lady in question is actually showing. But since I see "the whole thing" on a more-or-less regular basis, half-exposure isn't that exciting to me.

[Petros]

Conformist States [I think "society" will not work with conformity, given its original meaning] probably autmatically tend toward the puritanical. Not that the rules match those of my Puritan ancestors by the Bay, but that conformity cannot comfortably coexist with impulse. Men and women need uniforms, not garb or its absence that emphasizes difference [vive la difference!].