• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Adam Levine’s Super Bowl nipple reveal prompts backlash

Let's be real....Would mainstream straight porn (I suspect there is porn for "chubby chasers" just as there is for other fetishes) be at all worth watching were the male performer not fit? Even as a guy whose porn watching focus is on the women in porn videos, there's no way I'd watch porn that has some obese dude (or God forfend, multiple ones) banging a hot chick.

Good question.

Then again, there is always Ron Jeremy, isn't there?
 
Red:
I don't think that's the reason.

I think the reason is that Western culture, ever since Constantine, has long been run by and had laws and norms defined by individuals led by patriarchalism and paternalism.
  • Men ran and, even today, run the church
  • When the church ceased to hold formal public policy making authority, men ran the government.
  • Men overwhelmingly control every business industry.
Most of the men who ran/run things don't find themselves sexually "moved" at the sight of another man's body; however, most women are. In the quest to boost any given man's odds of attracting women, men were allowed to expose their bodies. In the quest to reduce the likelihood that any given man would be sexually "moved" by the sight of any specific man's wife, women have been discouraged from being quite as revealing as men have the "nihil obstat" to be.

Interesting take. But there are male dominated societies that do not require women to be covered, and those societies don't put the same sexual importance on the breast as western societies. While I agree that the cultural reason men are allowed to show more skin than women is related to our long history as a male dominated society, I believe that the specifically inflated sense of sexual arousal western men experience at the sight of a woman's nipple compared to men in other male dominated hunter gatherer societies is because western women cover them and the hunter gatherers do not.

Being aroused by the sight of the female body is, of course, normal. Being more aroused by a nipple than by legs is the result of living in a culture where the nipple must always remain covered in public and legs need not.
 
Have you ever given any thought that those (males) who are insecure about their own sexuality would favour both?

And women insecure about their sexual attractiveness might prefer things to remain the way they are.
 
Good question.

Then again, there is always Ron Jeremy, isn't there?
We have evolved since the 1970s, bro.

We can actually have regular looking people, and men with large chests in porn instead of hedgehogs.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
No, that's not what I'm arguing, liar. Stop strawmaning the point being made. Maybe it's just the point is beyond you to comprehend. Your counterpoints have been specious beyond reason, claiming dudes without shirts in porn is proof of your point. Dude...it's porn. People are going to be ditching the clothes and people are generally going to prefer fit people.

You know what's different than being fit? Big boobs. They are completely separate from being in good physical shape. There is a reason why there is also a huge industry for breast augmentation, to the tune of billions a year, another industry based solely on the size of breasts. It's not a muscle or any other such thing that gives an advantage or indicates fitness. All these things exist because there is a difference between the two, a sexual one.

A funny story about "porn" movies.

Back in 1976, the movie "Alice in Wonderland" was released in both an "R" and a "XXX" version. A reporter for one of our local papers had already reviewed the "R" version and when the "XXX" version was released decided to review that one as well. The reporter's judgment was that the whole movie made more sense with the bits that had been snipped out of the "XXX" version to produce the "R" version left in.

[ASIDE - The movie was actually shot locally at a "family park" that billed itself as "Alice's Wonderland". The owners of the park didn't have a clue what type of a movie was going to be shot, but enjoyed the two weeks holiday that the film's producer paid for so that they "wouldn't be bothered" by all the fuss and bustle during the movie shoot. BOY! Were they surprised when someone told them what the content of the movie that had been shot at their "family park" was.]
 
Yeah, I think CBS should sue to get its money back. 550K for a woman's nipple on a wardrobe malfunction but some creepy 40 year old rock star can do his best Chippendales impression and nobody bats an eye... Not to mention that all of the accompanying artists were bland as hell. Big Boi hasn't had a hit record since I like the way you move, that was like 15 years ago. Travis Scott is straight hipster garbage but he tried his best to be corny with whatever that intro effect was.

I think Janet was unfairly treated and should probably be invited back if the future of the SBHFS is cursing so much that whole sections of the performances are muted or contain some level of nudity.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Ironically enough, it was Janet's "nipplegate" that initiated the 7 second delay in the telecast. Good thing, it came in handy this year when one of the performers was bleeped out for a solid 5-7 second at least twice. Can you image puritanical America being subjected to that tirade of stringed-together profanity? :2razz:
 
Good question.

Then again, there is always Ron Jeremy, isn't there?
Thank you.

Red:
He does exist and he performed in many a porn film. Even as a straight man, I've always thought him not so much ugly as just not "on TV or film" good-looking, and for the life of me and for quite a long time, I had no idea why he appeared in so many of them...About 15 or so years ago, I found out.

Ron Jeremy has two qualities that made him ubiquitous in porn: a large penis and the ability to quickly obtain and subsequently maintain an erection under the decidedly "non-sexy" sets and time constraints in which porn films/videos are made. Those qualities, in porn (particularly "pre-Viagra" porn) at least, supersede whether the man is good looking enough to be, say, Cosmo, Playgirl or People magazines' "Man of the Year" or some such.

It's been a very long time since I've seen a porn video/film, so I have no idea of whether Jeremy still appears in them. If he looks like he did when, about ten years ago, I saw him in public, he looks gross, for want of a better term, albeit with a somewhat cherubically cheerful face. As just a guy "on the street," what he looks like is irrelevant. As a performer in a porn video, he's now reason enough not to buy/watch the thing.
 
Ironically enough, it was Janet's "nipplegate" that initiated the 7 second delay in the telecast. Good thing, it came in handy this year when one of the performers was bleeped out for a solid 5-7 second at least twice. Can you image puritanical America being subjected to that tirade of stringed-together profanity? :2razz:

That's some ****ing bull**** , right? ;)
 
Interesting take. But there are male dominated societies that do not require women to be covered, and those societies don't put the same sexual importance on the breast as western societies. While I agree that the cultural reason men are allowed to show more skin than women is related to our long history as a male dominated society, I believe that the specifically inflated sense of sexual arousal western men experience at the sight of a woman's nipple compared to men in other male dominated hunter gatherer societies is because western women cover them and the hunter gatherers do not.

Being aroused by the sight of the female body is, of course, normal. Being more aroused by a nipple than by legs is the result of living in a culture where the nipple must always remain covered in public and legs need not.

I should probably note that I don't think the status we today observe, as well as the cultural mores we today (in the US, at least) adhere to, have a single cause.
  • Male dominated cultural decision making --> Yes
  • Manifestation of "forbidden fruit" theory --> Yes
  • Other causes --> Surely there must be more than just the two above.
I think a plurality of causes have combined to create the mess of mores in which we find ourselves as goes the human form.


Blue:
Perhaps. I can't say the mere sight of a female body (nude or not) arouses me; the mere sight of certain, however, does. I really can't say what share of men have response patterns similar to mine.

Just thinking about the news program I had on earlier, of the women who appeared on it, some of them I'd implore to remain dressed because I can tell nothing I want to see will be revealed were they undressed (and one cannot unsee that which one has seen), yet of others, well, I wouldn't mind them doing the news naked, and there were one or two of whom I think the news would be far more watchable were they to appear naked on it.
 
For ****'s sake are we doing this **** again
 
People are upset over his nipples? :doh Who cares?
 
I should probably note that I don't think the status we today observe, as well as the cultural mores we today (in the US, at least) adhere to, have a single cause.
  • Male dominated cultural decision making --> Yes
  • Manifestation of "forbidden fruit" theory --> Yes
  • Other causes --> Surely there must be more than just the two above.
I think a plurality of causes have combined to create the mess of mores in which we find ourselves as goes the human form.


Blue:
Perhaps. I can't say the mere sight of a female body (nude or not) arouses me; the mere sight of certain, however, does. I really can't say what share of men have response patterns similar to mine.

Just thinking about the news program I had on earlier, of the women who appeared on it, some of them I'd implore to remain dressed because I can tell nothing I want to see will be revealed were they undressed (and one cannot unsee that which one has seen), yet of others, well, I wouldn't mind them doing the news naked, and there were one or two of whom I think the news would be far more watchable were they to appear naked on it.

To be sure, being aroused by the male body is also normal. Not that everyone is or should be aroused by the same things.

You bring up an interesting point: What about disgust? It's normal in America (in the sense that it seems pretty pervasive) to be disgusted by nude bodies that we don't find at all sexually attractive. But how much of that is also due to the fact that all of us keep our bodies covered? And is it a strength to be disgusted by the naked body of someone you have no sexual desire for? Most of us would feel at least a little bit of revulsion to see one of our parents or grandparents nude. Is this a good thing? Do people in societies where nudity is common feel the same disgust when seeing a nude grandparent? Would an average Saudi Arabian person feel disgust when seeing their grandmother at the pool in a modest (by American standards) one piece swimming suit?
 
To be sure, being aroused by the male body is also normal. Not that everyone is or should be aroused by the same things.

You bring up an interesting point: What about disgust? It's normal in America (in the sense that it seems pretty pervasive) to be disgusted by nude bodies that we don't find at all sexually attractive.
I am hard pressed to answer that question.

I'm not attracted to men, but I'm equally disgusted seeing an essentially or actually undressed obese man or woman. On the other hand, a nude (or nearly so) and fit person of either sex doesn't disgust me at all. I'm not attracted to hot men, but seeing them naked doesn't "gross me out." I am attracted to women, but an out of shape naked woman is, to me, disgusting, and the fact that she's a woman has no ameliorative effect whatsoever. Fit folks -- ideally good looking, but that's not a requirement as goes merely seeing someone naked -- of either sex are easier on the eye than are out of shape women.

I found that out about myself when, in our early 30s, my wife and I visited a US nude resort. We'd planned to spend the weekend; we left the next morning after less than 24 hours there. We/I never again visited a nude resort in the US. (Others later -- why is it that nobody tells you what you need to know until after you go -- told us that US nude resorts/events just aren't places where hot people, i.e., not more than ~5-10 lbs overweight or underweight, go.)


FWIW, at nude resorts, men unaccompanied-by-a-women just aren't welcome. I think that's part and parcel with what I mentioned earlier about the influence men have had on social mores. I think that sort of silly.

For instance, when you and your lady are chilling on the beach and some ripped dude walks by, yes, she's going to check him out. Then she's going to look at you and, well, you're every bit as ripped, so what's she going to do? Chase after that dude whom she doesn't know or think "I've already got that and it's going well, so I'm gonna leave well enough alone."

I can't speak for all women, but for the ones in my life, it's the latter. That said, I wouldn't suggest going to nudity-allowed places/events unless/until one's relationship is very stable and secure. Folks with inferiority, socialization and/or self-control issues probably also shouldn't go.


But how much of that is also due to the fact that all of us keep our bodies covered? And is it a strength to be disgusted by the naked body of someone you have no sexual desire for? Most of us would feel at least a little bit of revulsion to see one of our parents or grandparents nude. Is this a good thing? Do people in societies where nudity is common feel the same disgust when seeing a nude grandparent? Would an average Saudi Arabian person feel disgust when seeing their grandmother at the pool in a modest (by American standards) one piece swimming suit?

Red:
In general, I don't think so. In purely selfish sense, sure, I guess one could call it a strength...E.g., that disgust is what gave me the sense to never return to US nudist resorts, so, sure, it's an element of strength in that it kept me from wasting my time and money doing so. I don't think that's what you have in mind, but it's about all that I see as a strength to the noted form of revulsion.


Blue:
No. It's one's parents/grandparents and one's utter indifference about their bodies isn't a matter of whether one sees them nude or not; it's about their being one's parents/grandparents. What they wear or don't hasn't a thing to do with it...at least AFAIC.

As for how folks who daily existence occurs predominantly in the nude and what/how they think about it, I can't say. I'd posit that they think of it much as I've just above stated I do, but insofar as their culture and mine are as different as night and day, I truly have no idea if that's the case.


Pink:
Again, I have no idea, and I'm fairly confident that's going to remain a mystery to me. LOL That's just not a topic that's even come close to coming up with any Saudi or other Muslim whom I know. Neither is it one I'll bring up.

Indeed, aside from belly dancers, I don't think I've ever seen a Muslim woman not fully dressed...Actually, thinking back to a trip I took to Bodrum, the Muslim women on the beach wore outfits that one might roughly describe as pajamas. Was there a Muslim woman there wearing a bikini or one-piece? I don't know, but I didn't meet her and she was no one known to the wife, GF or children of my friends.
 
Back
Top Bottom