If you ship my otp I like you.
If you ship my notp I like you.
If you ship my otp and are rude, arrogant and hateful I probably don’t like you.
If you ship my notp and are rude, arrogant and hateful I probably don’t like you.
I do not like/dislike people depending on what they ship. I like/dislike people depending on how they act.
So when boys want to wear tank tops, it’s okay, but when I want to do it, it’s indecent and my shoulders are going to give every boy in a 20-mile radius a boner?
if your underage and its a professional environment, wear professional clothing. women have sexual organs on their top half, men don’t, don’t you know biology??
breasts aren’t sexual organs and neither are shoulders do everyone a favor staple your hands to your ass
“Don’t you know biology?”
While on the topic, we must acknowledge that secondary sex characteristics ≠ sexual organs. Consider the laryngeal prominence, or “Adam’s Apple," as it is commonly called. Both males and females have the same thyroid cartilage and, just as with breast tissue, hormone levels at puberty lead to sexually dimorphic differences in size.
Again, while we’re on the topic of science literacy, realize that there are a multitude of under-discussed implicit assumptions about the psychological effects of clothing. The truth is, we can discern what is genuinely biological from what is in constant flux across time and place. Though deduction and negation, we can be sure that if an effect is culture-locked, it is not biological. Cultural clothing norms are found to be less distracting than deviation from it, and this is true across all cultures: novelty stimulates, rouses the brain, and attracts attention. This is biology at work.
For example, if in cultures with Sharia Law, the female form is heavily obscured, yet culturally abnormal displays of the ankle, for example, are found highly distracting and novel. It isn’t the ankle that is imbued with the power of distraction, it is the perception of deviation from the norm. These laws are an attempt to curb that distraction, and prevent priming thoughts (culturally assumed to be sexual) about the female body. However, making a stimulus rarer increases its novelty. This can lead to sensitization thanks to the effect of the aforementioned increase in arousal from novelty.
We know that habituation, leads us to become less reactive to common stimuli, explaining why normative appearances and behavior are easily tuned out. This is why many other cultures in the world do not find ankles to be distracting or deserving of focus.
What does all of this mean?
Whatever clothing or fashion is allowed to be considered normal will no longer possess the potential to hijack attention. The real discussion we need to have as a society is whether we’d prefer to encourage sensitization or habituation.
Things I will forever be upset about:
1. I don’t know what my Patronus is
2. I don’t know what Amortentia smells like to me
3. I don’t know what I’d see in the Mirror of Erised
4. I don’t know what my Boggart would be
5. I don’t know for sure what house I would be in
6. I don’t know the specifications of my wand are.
7. I don’t know what position I’d play in Quidditch