Oh, let me add to that, Piff, with a great resource I know!

Jaybird's Guides to Naked Adventuring

Jaybird's guides are fun and interesting, and a very sensible and mature approach to the concept of backgrounds, philosophies, deities, patrons and other elements of the game that can involve or invoke elements of nudity and exposure as a natural part of the world space, and how it can work in a fun and mature way.

That aside, I did mean what I said: breasts are not inherently sexual, and nothing said so far has been any kind of argument or supporting reasoning to say otherwise - Jand as insisted that they 'are', but given nothing to back that up. We can definitely find them appealing and attractive, but that does not make them sexual any more than finding eyes or hair or freckles appealing and attractive does to them; it doesn't.

For the record, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong, Crimson) Crimson was pointing out that marking 'female breasts' as an inherently sexual thing automatically and at all times, irrespective of circumstance (such that a circumstance must 'outweigh' their inherent sexual nature before it can seem unappealing) is actively objectifying the breasts, and thus the female they are attached to - it is fixating on the breasts as an object with an inherent sexual nature, and reacting to them solely; that is unhealthy objectification of the woman those breasts are attached to, and if you cannot see that then you are a very, very long way down the ultraconservative rabbit hole.

Breasts are not inherently sexual - they are a part of a human body, and we are sexual creatures, but they no more need to be hidden than male nipples do, which is not at all.

How are female breasts sexual? Is it because they are a secondary characteristic which in our biology acts as a stand-in for advertising fitness to reproduce? Because if so, then I have to tell you that the male chest and torso serves the exact same purpose; if one of these things is inherently sexual for that reason, then they both are, and if that means that one of them must be covered and hidden, then they both must be. They aren't, and shouldn't.

Is it because they are often an erogenous zone for many women? Once again, so are many other places - the shells of the ears, the hands, the neck, the centre of the back, the thighs, the soles of the feet - variously, these are all sometimes so for many different men and women alike; add the male chest and nipples to this as well, of course. Once again - if female breasts are inherently sexual for this reason, then so are the other areas I mentioned; if one of them needs to be necessarily covered and hidden for this reason, then they all must be - on men and women alike. They aren't, and shouldn't be.

Breasts serve a function in women, which is to feed offspring during the earliest phase of their life. This is not a sexual thing, and it is not a sexual purpose or function. Short of having a child to rear, they spend the majority of their existence not even fulfilling or being able to be utilised for this purpose at all. They have no other biological purpose beyond this, and their existence as secondary characteristics.

So, again... what reason can be given for necessarily having to hide or cover them; in what way, does a person claim that they are inherently sexual things? What legitimate justification is given for this claim?

They can be sexualised; anything can be sexualised. Their presence as a secondary characteristic and their propensity to act as erogenous areas lends them to this, in fact - just the same as the male chest and torso does, and just the same as the buttocks of either sex do. So yes, they can definitely be sexual fixations for some people - many people, even. That's not my fault, and it has nothing to do with me; other people's fetishes do not and should never control my rights. Shall we ban balloons because some people find watching young ladies sit on them to pop them to be arousing? Shall we ban g-strings, becuase they show off the buttocks?

"...Actually, can we outlaw g-strings on women just in general... I'm really not a fan, they aren't comfortable... Let the men keep wearing them though; that's sexy." - I might think that, in my mind as an aside, in jest... but this is what sexism looks like folks; this is the kind of thing that people like Jand, above, are pushing for as 'truth', and it's not okay. Destructive sexism strokes both way - both in the expectation of display, and the over-sexualisation of that display, but also in the repressing and restricting of freedoms to control your own self. The only solution is to evoke freedom of individuals to dress and present as they wish to, within the confines of their own self.

Quote
I guess the end result is trying to change the world or something.

Does that mean the solution might necessitate changing a lot about our world and how individual men and women within it are treated both by each other and by the media we consume - including our video games? Yes... It may well do. How do we change the world then? One step at a time, unfortunately... and this is one of those steps that we can stand up and support fairness for. So, honest question, Jand; do you want to be the person helping to support fair and equal treatment of presentation and representation... or do you want to be the person fighting against it and striving to preserve modern misogyny? It is, really, that simple a question.