What do you think of SIDE-BOOB in women's fashion?

[AviatorTom]

Apparently, it's becoming common for women's clothes to reveal their side boob, as shown in this picture of Emily Ratajkowski wearing a LBD.

What do you think of this fashion trend?

[CaptainOverthink]

It can be very sexy. Sometimes more than cleavage, but i don't know, that might just be because it's easier to chance a split-second glance from the side. Why be obvious about it when it's just a guilty urge to look.
In the end it's just superficiality at play, nature.

Soo.. I don't mind it.
Feels pervy to admit that but, it's instinct and a look don't harm nobody, in my opinion. Though I am not the one being observed, so what am I even talking about?

[Miristheiss]

I mean it is sexy to look at... I wouldn't have taken any girl seriously as a girlfriend or wife who dressed up like that. When I was single I would have hooked up with a girl like that but a girl who was girlfriend or wife worthy would have been more modest.

[ItsChloe]

I really don’t mind having sideboob, it doesn’t bother me. And it’s not a fashion trend, it’s just how clothes are made nowadays because manufacturers are trying to cut down on fabric use because they know that us girls only wear an item of clothing once or twice because new clothing ranges come out all the time and because of that it affects climate change so they say.

[monorprise]

@itschloe You do care about how the clothing looks or you wouldn't try to keep up with fashion, you would just stick to whatever feels good.

If you cared about money, or the environment you wouldn't try to save 10% of the fabric so you could throw away 90% after only a few uses. You would actually wash and retain the same clothing, or at least buy used so that the same article doesn't have to be remade and you can save money.

That said ending the ongoing Quaternary ice age, is ultimately a very desirable thing that we should be encouraged. that we should also be helping earth's other life adapt to theses ultimately desirable changes for all life is anther issue.

[ItsChloe]

@monorprise I don’t care about climate change. I’ll be six feet under long before it happens. It all about the looks for me and I have to have the most recent fashion in my wardrobe. You wouldn’t find me dead in second hand clothes, only peasants were second hand clothes.

[Red_Arrow]

Then you must already be dead. Climate change has been affecting the whole world. The recent floods in Vermont was labeled a once in a hundred years storm. Eight inches of rain fell near West Point, NY, and was called a once in a thousand year event. The same day, ocean temperatures off the Florida coast passed the 90-degree mark. Hot tubs are around 100 degrees with 104 degrees the maximum recommended. People like to swim to cool off, but now it is getting to the point of cooking in the ocean.

[ItsChloe]

@Red_Arrow all that is just the media scaremongering you into submission.

[Red_Arrow]

So according to you all that flooding in Vermont does not exist. The ocean water is not ridiculously high. Twelve straight days of 110-degree temperatures in Phoenix, after weeks of a punishing heat dome have pressed down on Texas is common for you. For each degree Celsius of warming, the atmosphere holds 7 percent more water vapor, driving the extreme precipitation events in New England that have increased by 55 percent since 1958, according to the Fourth National Climate Assessment. Those are facts on the chaos we are experiencing, not scaremongering.

[Losalt]

@ItsChloe
No, you won't be six feet under.
I was born in 1987 and I've seen huge changes in the climate in *my* lifetime.
Mind you, I live in Europe (Norway), so I'm more affected then Americans in terms of the size of the changes.
On the other hand, we're more capable of mitigating the effects on ourselves then many other countries, including the US.

[Losalt]

And no, it's not scaremongering...
It's easy to see here.
Glaciers melting away, weather changing.
Snow no longer staying in winter but melting away, plants dying because there's no snow to insulate them.
Ticks growing in numbers because the winter cold that used to kill them is gone.
I've seen the changes and I've *felt* the changes.
I also have relatives in all the countries around the Atlantic ocean, including Greenland.
They're *all* talking about climate changes they've experienced.
Even a lot of young people see it.
Climate change denial is really only a US thing because of how politicized everything is there, including facts and fiction...

[monorprise]

@Red_Arrow For 85%+ of earth's history there was no-percent ice on either pole. You are living in the middle of one of Earth's great Ice Age's this one is called the Quaternary, it started around 2.5 million years ago. So yes all of that is actually nonsense.

[Red_Arrow]

@monorprise Regardless of the different periods in the history of earth, climate changes can still happen. And anyone with a brain can see it happening all over. The US has been fairly lucky that it has not been as bad here, but stop denying it and learn about it. Read some of the comments from others here and they clearly tell of many changes going on. We did not have to wait millions of years to see all the flooding that is happening, the heat domes that are making life so uncomfortable and dangerous, and the ocean reaching towards 100 degrees.

[monorprise]

@Red_Arrow Perhaps you should take a moment to think over this fact a little more closely. The world ending disaster your leading us to beleive this change will cause, we know will not happen because earth has already spent nearly all of history in conditions even WARMER with even MORE CO2 than we are expecting to have.

Yes the world will get warmer, and eventually it will get colder again. This happens naturally, particularly during the global instability of an ice age interglacial such as the Ongoing Holocene inside the greater Quaternary.

In general warming is a good thing overall increasing the amount of energy and life earth can support, thou change is always difficult. Global cooling by contrast reduces the carrying capacity of the earth.

If we do nothing at all the current interglacial will end, and earth's global temperatures will once again drop drastically. Our burning of fossil fuels will not be enough to stop this, according to the UN's own reports even if we burned all of them it will at best only forestall the next 5 glacial cycles, perhaps buying us half a million years.

Nonetheless this would be a wonderful thing for life on earth.

[Red_Arrow]

@monorprise I am aware of cycles and was not suggesting that the changes will end the world. But it will cause more and faster warming before things turn the other direction. And those changes are causing many problems, including recent deaths from flooding. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere raises global temperature. Since the beginning of industrial times (in the 18th century), human activities have raised atmospheric CO2 by 50% – meaning the amount of CO2 is now 150% of its value in 1750. This is greater than what naturally happened at the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago.
In addition to the industrial causes of CO2 increases, man is destroying things that give us the oxygen to counter the increase in CO2. The rain forests are a natural source of air cleansing, producing oxygen. Yet man is cutting down such places to expand into them. Without rainforests, our planet is unable to mitigate excess greenhouse gas emissions, which destabilizes the Earth's climate.
Hearing is also drying out many forests, making them susceptible to wildfires. The pollutants that puts in the air travels and causes health problems over much wider areas than the fire is contained in. In addition to making people sick, it also affects travel. The wildfires in the Northwest have greatly affected both health and travel.
The number of people our planet can support can vary by how we live. For instance, relying on a vegetarian diet more that meat would increase use of the land for crops instead of cattle growth, which would also cut back the methane being released into the atmosphere. So, lots of variables. But scientists have predicted that the earth can support numbers between 10 billion and 13 billion people. The rate of population increase has sped up and we may reach those maximum numbers very shortly.
Put all these together and that is certainly NOT a wonderful thing for life on earth.

[Doglove14]

Oh gezz I used to wear my older sister's hand me downs all of the time. Guess I'm a peasant

[monorprise]

@Red_Arrow Its rather odd that you pick the industrial revolution as a starting point as it just happens to consider with the mini-ice age. An unusually cold spike in the ongoing inter-glacial.
Don't get me wrong cold an warm spikes are quite common historically in inter-glacial spheroids, the ongoing Holocene inter-glacial has been compared to the others very stable.

A stability that has allowed modern civilization to thrive, this stability will not last thou, this is not normal for an ice age climate. We need to end the current ice age, burning the remaining 90% of earth's fossil fuel reserves into the atmosphere will buy us half a million years.

As for the natural deasters you speak of, im afraid your misinformed. They are neither more common nor related to the relatively minor warming that has taken place. Wild fire are due to poor forest management, We know this because other similarly situated states don't have hoses problems. In general the forest are actually doing much better, there are more trees today in North America then there were 100 years ago. Seeing as there are many times more people that is impressive.
Flooding has always been happening and the only thing new like with hurricanes if we humans are now in more palaces than ever before.
As for "scientist" making predictions, as usual nearly all of them are wrong, and you will find other scientist who make far different predictions. One of the dishonest things about politics (including lackeys in 'news') is that they cherry pick the people and opinions to feed you to push an agenda.

Anther scientist perhaps wiser would have looked at the green revolution and realize we haven't even scratched the surface of how many people can be supported. Indeed most all of earth's surface can be converted to make food with modern tecnoligy. The next big revolution is sea farming.

[Red_Arrow]

@monorprise I picked the industrial revolution because it is recent enough to have good knowledge of and well documented, so not strange at all. And while there may seem to be enough fossil fuel to last forever, mankind cannot last anywhere near that long with all the damage we are doing to earth. The "natural disasters" are more common and are related to warming. Similarly situated states do have those problems. Watching news just this weekend, the warming is happening across the whole country and is causing many deaths. Records for the amount of heat, and how long it lasts, are being broken across the whole country. And as for the predictions of the scientists being wrong, that sure sounds like "Everybody else is wrong and only I am right." Sorry old chap, that insane argument does not work.

[monorprise]

@Red_Arrow Once again your claims of the disaster effects of 'global warming' from natural disasters to records deaths are total nonsense. If your getting this information from the news then you should know better than to trust anything those serial and manipulative lairs say.

The hard data shows natural disasters are NOT more common, as for death, you are FAR more likely to die from being too cold than too hot, even still our population is aging and is more vulnerable than ever to any kind of non-ideal circumstance which happens regularly every year..

No, said scientist made predictions 20 and 40 years ago which turned out to be way off. Their model is flawed and any claim to have 'fixed' it since has yet to be demonstrated. Meanwhile the other scientist who didn't go down this crazy global warming train were in fact making better predictions.

If you got your information from actual science rather than agenda pushing propaganda that is politics you would know this.

[Red_Arrow]

@monorprise Actually, I did get my information from actual science. Guess that makes your "information" the propaganda.

[monorprise]

@Red_Arrow
Once again Science is NOT a "Fact book" or any particular "expert" you can't get your information from it, Science is a process of open inquiry and testing.

The fact that you even said that you got your information from "actual science" even after I reminded you that ACTUAL science is a process, and gave you competing ideas which have made better predictions. Just goes to show you don't even know what science is, and strongly suggest you are in fact reading propaganda.

[Red_Arrow]

@monorprise The fact that got my information from the process of inquiry and testing shows that I got it from what you admit is true science. And the fact that you continue to shun real science to continue hanging on to your nonsense shows that you are in fact following the propaganda of Fox and Trump.

[monorprise]

@Red_Arrow If your going to model anything you have to make accurate predictions. Failure to accurately predict future climate is a big problem with the creditably of theses theories being modeled.

Disregarding known historic climate conditions that defined the history of the earth is a very big problem indicating your typical alarmist propaganda that defines politics and media.

Even the way they are going about manipulating the information is dishonest and designed to push the same false narrative:
https://youtu.be/QUm6hBAzD8o

[Alli39]

It can be cool/sexy done right, not unusually my go-to vibe though. Then again, I'm not sure I've ever seen it done wrong either.

[Red_Arrow]

Currently in public women wear tops loose enough to expose the whole breast. Tops that are so tight they form fit the breasts are common. So are sheer tops. And I am not talking about what the celebrities are wearing. You can see this on common people as they are at the store shopping. So side-boob is just another fashion as we get closer to accepting topless apparel in public.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Some people can pull it off and it looks sexy. Most of the time I see it it's some lady who's 90lbs overweight and tried to shoehorn herself into "the same size she always was" when she hasn't been that size in 20 years. Not so much then. If your side boob has cleavage that's not sideboob that's just ill-fitting

[Mansearching]

Its not new. Side boob has been around longer than we think. Its been pointed out more often. Its the dress or top that women wear. If it looks cute then if side boob happens then it does.

What makes it wrong is if lady deliberately buys a dress or top just to show side boob.

[OlderAndWiser]

I don't mind seeing side boob on a cute girl, but there are many women whose boobs I don't want to see from any angle! And I wouldn't want my fiancée in public exposing side boob.

[EmmaMary]

Personally I am not a fan of the sideboob look, other than that I'm in total agreement with what @ItsChloe has mentioned.

However... Anything that puts a smile on the guy's faces! lol

[Kelly6]

totally agree

[OfMiceandMen]

Is it one of those trends where you pay more for the outfit and get less...

If I am going to pay 1.5K for an outfit, better be getting a suit or something with some substantial material out of the deal.

[sheenagwapa]

the job of celebrities is to stand out. you are there to get attention. i think it's fine. irl it's something i wouldn't wear

[RavVid]

I think it has been a promised fashion trend that has sadly failed to burst onto the streets. I love it. I have crossed roads for it. A deeply cut singlet is a major tease.

The first three are my pick here.
https://www.etsy.com/au/market/side_boob_tank_top

[Lliam]

No biggie. I'm all for it. Side boob, cleavage, underboob, braless, sheer fabric is all charming as far as I'm concerned.

[jshm2]

It's not a fashion statement or "trend"

The actual fashion is " going braless" and these sorts of clothing lines are how some are showing that they are.

[D_Bone_Steak]

I love women's boobs. Being able to see some, is better than not being able to see some.

[susie22]

I don't have a problem with side boob view, if you're firm and perky it can be fun and empowering to show off a bit, lol.

[Anemone978]

I am not for showing my body parts to men I don't like or want.. so not interested in those type of clothes

[Sirenboobzilla]

I'm neutral towards it. I have a few items that show some side boob. More just stuff you wear on special ocassions that call for being extra flashy

[ArrowheadSW]

To me, probably a bit too revealing for being in public. Maybe around the house. I like it, but probably a bit much for public wearing.

[Wraith_Cemetery]

Not very dignified. But, then again, not many women are today.

[ManOnFire]

Mehhh, I don't much think of it one way or another. It's fine.

[SassyAussieAddy]

Side boob is pretty tame considering the see through top trend

[Sparkie460]

It's more than some women wear. There is also the new sheer see through clothing trend going on

[soe11]

I don't mind if my girlfriend show off, I would be support her, it's female liberation, normally my girlfriend did wear bra with her outfit.

[Alex-Snow]

I love it. It lets one see the shape way better. Then again I'm a horny 18 yr old guy who likes any view of a boob.

[msc545]

I don't really care. Women are constantly exposing themselves in one way or another in order to get men to pay attention to them and provide for them. It doesn't matter.

[boobliker]

I just love to see all a round the boobs side top bottom and middle as well as the hole thing.

[AnusNdaPainus]

Side boobs are a technical foul.

[RingOfFire]

Is there anything NOT to like about seeing more boob? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Friendlybro79]

I'm a fan of all sides of the boob and whatever a woman is comfortable in wearing.

[Anonymous]

😆😆😆

https://www.youtube.com/embed/8x6dyfiNyog

[zero444440000]

side boobs are blessed and hot af to look att, so yeah i love them lol.

[AngryCarl2]

If your body is perfect, fine. Just don't draw attention to imperfections.

[jennifer_bloom]

It's no different from legalized porn. That is pornographic imagery that is legal cause it hides the legally banned parts.

[jwmiller95]

From a man's perspective it looks sexy. Knowing she is someone else's man makes me feel weird about looking. But if that was my girl I don't think I'd enjoy everyone's eyes on her. Only your partner should appreciate your body not the public.

[Raaj4you]

Boobs are the most attractive part of women.

[PeteA380]

It's a bit too much to display unnecessary skin and curves.

[dolemite58]

i always assumed it was just a cost of doing business if u had big boobs 🤷‍♂️😂

[Anonymous]

im a natrual side boober and I HATE it.. i much rather have them lean together but eh. what can u do...

I wouldn't be showing my side boob anyways so...

[RobT312]

Its a super sexy view

[Jazzy54]

Not my thing. 🤷🏽‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Its subtle, sexy and erotic I really like it

[CubsterShura]

I don't think about it.

[nolabels]

Side-boob is absolutely magnificent!

[Luopio27]

Look whst you can't touch!
I prefer all girls fully covered boobs.

[spartan55]

I think sideboob is good.

[Anonymous]

It sends a clear message that a woman is intentially trying to get attention of a certain kind. I think it's trashy.

[Greta_854]

That's looking cute I prefer sometimes too

[exitseven]

The more the merrier.

[ProbablyClueless]

I've always thought sideboob was hot.

[LimitedBenefits101]

" Look at me, I need attention"

[Melissa1100]

I search serious relationship with me 😍

https://drum. io/whatsapp. group

[Christoff92]

It's alright. Whatever she prefers 😊

[Wise4myage]

Honestly, I love seeing side boob views.

[AimeeKyle]

It can be really sexy in the right outfit

[DextroShade]

I like it but that woman is a psychotic cunt.

[SpaceGalaxy]

I prefer to see her ass instead

[LostandFound__x]

I like jt

[Paige90]

I love it!!

[sportyfitkate]

she's so pretty

[helva]

Never saw this in real life.

[The_Shadow_Dweller]

Saw a girl when getting a burger. The guys wer so uncomfortable 😂 I mean, I cannot blame them. It was their first time, I guess. I was like, as long as no full boobs out in the open, fine for me.👍
I did not give any special attention to her as I did not believe it was warranted.

And it really does look good on some and really horrific on others.

From what I can see, girls with healthy boobs can afford it as it makes them look sexy. But if they have saggy or anything remotely boobs, I think it would not look good enough.

[Kingofkings1992]

I like it. It’s sexy

[abc--123]

Very sexy

[Iamcoming]

Very erotic not good