User talk:BobtheVila

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello BobtheVila! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- LittleOldMe 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


Hows it going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BobtheVila

Breast article[edit]

I reverted you here and here because breasts are a female secondary sex characteristic. Why do you keep removing this material? You are not supposed to keep removing this material without explanation; see the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay, and especially see the WP:Edit warring policy. If you keep removing this material, I will report the matter at WP:Anatomy. The next step after that, depending on how many times you WP:Edit war, will be either the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or WP:ANI. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I neglected the description before, but I guess I will have of explain myself now.

1. The topic regards only culture memes and was not referring to sex determination or the difference between the sexes, and thus damages the origins of their form from being that of the need to nurse children in its context.
More or less like a cow udder (or, the multiple nipple variant of the mammary unit), the human female breasts' form is comprised mostly of mammary glands which form within already existent fat, which continues to grow with the glands and act as insulation, and also like a cow udder, consists of ligaments to divide, structure and hold up the region. The roundness even helps children better suckle from the teat according to the article itself. It would be incorrect to enforce that their constant shape is made for or also made for legitimately attracting mates as they cannot change and bounce to all common movement (or any dance). It's thus primarily sexual for all its physical attributes, not secondarily, and since these properties do not happen by the consent of the female, this idea could thus help lead to premature and unwanted impregnation (as it has in the past). Legs were just as much a problem in the past and were censored to no end.

2. From the "secondary" sexual characteristics article of Wikipedia: "In humans, visible secondary sex characteristics include enlarged breasts of females and facial hair and adam's apple on males."
This is more clear, but still, not everyone is attracted to larger breasts and the importance of the Adam's apple has practically died, making this merely preference and otherwise a mere aspect of sex determination.
The problem is that you could say anything certain people had a fetish for have themselves secondary sexual characteristics just due to it, and so all of the human body would have sexual characteristics, yet these fetishes usually lead to one being either addicted or having a problem with personification of the person's person as the person in daily life, which is why those parts were more so hidden in the past for daily living, and IS why bestiality, pedophilia and etc. even exist within the species the first place: taking sexual pleasure in mere aesthetic beauties which aren't even temporal and by no means fully exclusive to age or gender in the first place. Like many ape species, the core of our body never changes and only differs a little in places and mainly overall physique (thin to muscular in healthy humans, with pre-teens, early-teens and women being similar here), and clothing doesn't do much to cover the aesthetic beauty of the overall anatomy and physique. It is still viewable. Similarly, if you remove the nipples and everything else from a "nude" figure or humanoid creature, the same exact physique is strangely finally personify-able in society, male and female! This is despite the fact nipples look the same and only women's relay a nursing function. As seen, another leg scenario.

3. In nature, there is one rule for sex: it is neither an addiction nor a problem hindering life or social life. It's an event, an action, a change, a time and a season, not a being. There is a mating call and a mating sign, all the same. There is a mating ritual or a dance, all the same.
Animals (and naturists, who are currently being hazed of their rights in many places around the world, despite how isolated or happily mixed these regions are, lifestyles being relatively unchanged and many of the species's advancements naturally and properly carrying over) always see those parts without care, yet without ignorance or resistance, just the same as a clothed person today lives (grooming etc.). It is a nature that, to them, it is just them and themselves or another unconditionally, and either go by changes during a mating season or by their own tendencies or urge to perform the action itself. For us, that would usually be initiated by heavy embarrassing and/or kissing, one thing possibly leading to the other. On the other hand, with their primitive way of communicating with one another, animals also throw out a predetermined/programmed audible call or visual sign/state made to signify their need for a partner and tendencies. Others will initiate a routine or dance. From here a selection is made, based upon various factors (even fighting).
While animals do indeed compete or look for the most healthiest and best, this itself doesn't translate into the problems listed with humans in enforcing a prurient nature upon everyone and everything visual or physical. In fact, it is so bad that many tell nudist they are wrong about what they say and that they cannot remove sex forever, despite the removal of sex having nothing to do with it. They ignore that nudist men grow up differently because it is a nature to them and they can thus nurture without sexual advance. If these other people got their way, naturist would have orgies and even have sex in front of their own children on a whim, end of story, as mere notice is not notice of a person and adoration of aesthetic beauty isn't possible without sexual advance, yet these parts are all doing nothing out of the ordinary to call to anyone.--BobtheVila (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I noted at my talk page, I removed the text you dispute from the article. But not for the reasons you gave for removing the material. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW, for others, this is a response to a response found on discontinued version of the conversation at Flyer22 (talk). If you wish to see Flyer22's response before this one, go ahead and see his talk for it. Also, note that I rarely make edits to articles and leave things relatively alone, so this may or may not lead to anything on my end.
By the looks of the breast fetishism article's "scientific" explanation, man's actions are indeed sometimes times used to signify what has or hasn't sexual signals, ignoring that, in order for this signaling aspect to be secondary, the part has to used temporarily in a special way as part of a ritual or call etc., so as to be able to return to its primary function for daily and/or social life. Also, there are already subtler changes to the breasts and other regions when a human female is ovulating, anyhow.
You'll see one zoologist in that section say it's a sexual signal as it imitates the cleft of our buttocks, both being something we all have and really at any age, also doing nothing but being itself (it's just part of where the hind connective and movement muscles of the legs come together, which are much like the connection and movement muscles of an animal's front legs or our arms' shoulder and back shoulder blade muscle groups, and by being more pronounced, can support the spine as we sit and conveniently hide the anus, also pressing or blobbing together as we sit, making the region vastly more sanitary in comparison), and others said that they're permanent merely so that the female can continue to solicit male attention even when they aren't legitimately fertile, to which, yes, we do know better, and yes, women's breasts do change during this period, so it doesn't work already. And anyhow, many of these people could care less about having kids. Otherwise, the statement would then repeat the "by sight alone" logic of the above zoologist, so it seems man's past culture and/or traditions can have an effect on the topic. Animal nature is nowhere near as branched and independent as ours and differs much less across a species, so one cannot claim any such activity is part of the route.
From a literal physical standpoint, human female breasts are permanent for the same reason the udder of a cow's is, final. This further, unneeded explanation made only to examine culture and tradition will serve only to hide and destroy the literal physical reason the human female breasts are constant from conscious and diverse society. And females aren't alone. Many animals don't have pronounced pectoral muscles whereas gorillas and humans do (and some other animals to an extent). Fat, our chest begins to push out individually on each side and sag whereas other animals usually become a solid ball of fat. Muscular, the pectoral muscles of some animal become a little pronounced individually on each side while ours quickly become huge.
And it's not just use of non-sexual body parts as sexual body parts, such as the anus, as these people also get aroused by the sight of these same parts which are constant, which is what I mean by pedophilia and bestiality. There is a mental, psychological development that results in one being sexually stimulated by the sight and thought of things that shouldn't be and things which could have been joyful. The above could worsen this all by comforting the "frustration build up by sight" problem society has, and ignores the many that still don't have prurient agendas nor this problem, including but not limited to nude tribes and those grown up in the naturist lifestyle. For example, the claim from the zoologist which makes our legs' connective and movement buttock muscles out to be a symbol for sex as if by natural law is pushing it due to their universal and constant nature, and indeed could comfort said who arouse themselves by the sight of one's buttocks.
We all have taste buds, but not everyone likes or enjoys the same tastes the same way. It's really downplaying the entire human race as a curious and highly advanced, intellectual species by claiming all of the above and that anything else is only ego or repression. If all of this were true regarding our behavior, that it is about ignorance of permanently active sex signals, that means no option for anyone, and all else is just lust which could lead to many things, even criminal sex acts. We are so advanced that knowing when a woman is ovulating is just knowing when it's possible to have children, and only when both partners are prepared to do so and have agreed. It is best an event full of heavy feelings and sensations, as this other idea leads to us mating like rabbits too quickly. To naturists but not limited to naturists, noticing physical beauty is just like anyone of any gender noticing and complimenting a beautiful, lovely lady in a beautiful dress or a handsome man in a nice outfit, and lastly, noticing the cuteness of a boy or girl in an adorable attire.
So that's all for now, it took several days to respond, so I may not respond instantly. Also, as I do not edit a lot, I'm likely going off to do other things, though I will watch the topic otherwise.--BobtheVila (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm female. And because I'd rather not continue this discussion, I won't be replying to anything else you stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Welp, your gender is not an issue to me, but that's OK. Good day to you. I'd rather not discuss society either, so we'll leave it at that.--BobtheVila (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)