Author Topic: ATKitton best not be bant. (New title, JUST KIDDING!!!!)  (Read 12080 times)

If tits weren't covered and you grew up with them around in beaches and stuff you'd get just as wet or hard as a chick would because of our stuff.

Not so. Breasts being loveualized in the way they are makes them an object we lust for.

You're not a girl dude, lots of girls tell me that chests are lovey.
Sure, warmness, that's why they should be optional.
If a girl sees a chest it's not as big as a thing for boy to see a girls chest.

@Swholli
I don't know why they are loveual, I'm not god as tho it may seem ;D

Not to mention Freeze is only 12.

Girls didn't have breasts at 12, and I don't think I even liked breasts at 12.

What of loveuality does he know?


Clearly you do not.

Breasts being "loveual" is a man made thing. Notice, if you will, ancient cultures who's woman were very scantily clad.

Even today in African tribes it's perfectly normal to see the women not wearing shirts. For some reason the puritans of old decided that breasts were not ok.

Not to mention Freeze is only 12.

Girls didn't have breasts at 12, and I don't think I even liked breasts at 12.

What of loveuality does he know?
Actually, some do.

Not so. Breasts being loveualized in the way they are makes them an object we lust for.
But if they weren't loveualized at all, then we wouldn't give a stuff. That's what I just said.

Not to mention Freeze is only 12.

Girls didn't have breasts at 12, and I don't think I even liked breasts at 12.

What of loveuality does he know?
He's 12? Well that explains alot. A 12 year old is kind of too young to talk about adult things, unless he's hit puberty.
And your views on drugs will probably change if you're only 12 dude. Mine did. Though I have always liked tits.

If a girl sees a chest it's not as big as a thing for boy to see a girls chest.

@Swholli
I don't know why they are loveual, I'm not god as tho it may seem ;D
Ask a girl that has hit puberty and been there for a while if dude chests turn her on. Girls like chests too.

Yeah, technically some, but I really don't remember them.

See, that's just a prime example of what I'm talking about. When we were little, though we may be early bloomers and like girls, we never lusted after their flat chests. It wasn't until something grew there that society said to be bound up and that we couldn't have them that made us lust after them.

If tits weren't covered and you grew up with them around in beaches and stuff you'd get just as wet or hard as a chick would because of our stuff.
If tits weren't covered and you grew up with them around in beaches and stuff you'd get just as wet or hard as a chick would because of our stuff.
Wrong, for example in the olden days legs werent shown and they were a huge loveual desire. So much so that even a table leg would turn a guy on, hence why they invented table skirts

EDIT:
Quote
But if they weren't loveualized at all, then we wouldn't give a stuff. That's what I just said.
Thats the opposite of what you said actually


Aphrodite of Milos(Venus de Milo), Alexandros of Antioch, Sometime between 130 and 100 BC

If you have a problem with nudity in classical art, you really need to grow up.

Why are you guys posting statues anyway? Were not talking about art were talking about a girl posting a shirtless pic of herself

I think it should be made that nude stuff would be ok but not research.


I agree 100%

Wrong, for example in the olden days legs werent shown and they were a huge loveual desire. So much so that even a table leg would turn a guy on, hence why they invented table skirts

This, actually. Perfect example, impeccable logic.

Why are you guys posting statues anyway? Were not talking about art were talking about a girl posting a shirtless pic of herself
I'm hearkening back to a time when the depiction of breasts in art was acceptable, even perhaps welcomed.

If you have a problem with nudity in classical art, you really need to grow up.
Say that to half my school.