This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

Meta: Moderation and the rules

submitted by circlingmyownvoid2 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

They died, but that’s hit the case anymore and it still doesn’t make breasts a sexual organ.

I didn’t avoid anything. Ask a non rhetorical question without writing a novel if you want every single sentence addressed.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

First you said:

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

Now when challenged on that you say that before there was infant formula

They died.

So now dying is the same as surviving?

And how does this prove your preposterous and misogynistic claim that infants' need of breast milk to survive the first 6-8 months of life for all of human evolution and history until very recently "still doesn't make breasts a sexual organ"?

In addition to insulting all women who have breastfed their/our own children, and all those who have breastfed or provided breast milk for other women's children too, your claim that human breasts are not sexual organs that fulfill a reproductive purpose is basically the same as saying that humans are not mammals.

Also, if human breasts are not sexual organs meant to play a key role in reproduction; the nourishment, immunity & survival of young offspring; and the perpetuation of the species Homo Sapiens, what's their purpose then?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There’s nothing contradictory there. We have rendered them nonessential to life.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But that still doesn't make human breasts non-sexual or asexual as you say.