Lmao. That’s how you do it right though. If you don’t piss them off a little bit they don’t grow up right. Keep up the good work.

Indeed, though like many I tend to associate the straight dust cover more with US beretta factory 92’s and the sloped cover with Italy- though Italy can produce either and it seems in genuine Italian fashion to follow their mood or what is on hand. Without marking it could go any way, though the odds of a gun leaving the factory unmarked… well, from the picture I can’t tell based on the finish either, but regardless beretta is an Italian company and when I think Beretta my first thought goes to Italy.

Only 34?! What, did you get the dude that writes the Bible on a grain of rice to transcribe it? I demand at least 8 don’t size. Build more libraries post haste.

That’s what brought me here too. Not… not the same at all.
I wonder if they realize Rosa Parks wasn’t riding the bus to try and say certain people didn’t deserve rights or that they didn’t actually exist and were just mentally ill…

Many workouts either are cosmetic and focus on “show muscles” that will make one look muscular or large but they ignore the small stabilizer muscles that don’t add much size and generally aren’t considered impressive or noticed. Other work outs focus on developing functional performance at a specific task and neglect muscles that aren’t used as much for that task.
So the real world performance, the ability to use strength will in part depend on the type of workouts and training.
In short- you can’t always judge a book by its cover.

We also have to factor in “show muscles.” There is no bro science here. It is simple established fact. You have muscles like biceps that perform important functions but also tend to be muscles many people prize and focus on as signs of power or attractiveness or to provide strength etc. your body has lots of smaller muscles, some you’d only ever see externally on the most jacked and cut body builders. Many tiny “stabilizer muscles” and muscles that are less glamorous and generally harder to train and get notica ke results than abs or biceps.
Big biceps can lift a heavy weight right? But- your whole arm through the shoulders, your core- back, abs etc; your chest and legs and lots of tiny muscles are being used. If you had giant biceps and tiny shoulder muscles and went to carry a heavy weight you’d likely not be able to or your year your arm out.

Put simply, if you look at power strength athletes and professions which require and prioritize power, the physiques you will see most do not look like the guy on the left. The guy on the left is likely strong and likely fit- though not necessarily (more in a moment..) but he is what most people THINK strength (power) looks like, not the demonstrable reality of what optimum power performance tends to look like in a physique.

If you are wanting muscles for “show” you usually cut your food and water intake leading up to the display to achieve a certain lean look. Endurance type athletes can be very lean and perform well but strength and endurance are linked but not the same. So strength wise someone who has all their muscles showing and looks “ripped” isn’t necessarily stronger than someone who has little or no visible musculature. Bigger muscles also aren’t inherently stronger as variables in training and central nervous response as well as mental conditioning and hormonal levels at the time of the performance help dictate strength.

It gets complex but generally the “strongest” people don’t look like Arnold when it comes to functional strength. The “strongest people” tend to look a bit “fat” because they have higher body fat. It cushions organs and muscles and fat is a source of potential fuel. It is also the case that adding mass and strength optimally and having the energy to use it require proper nutrition and the body is either at a surplus to gain or a deficit to lose fat. When you try to train “lean” you either need the right genetics and laboratory perfect nutrition (and/or drugs) to gain muscle without gaining fat or you need to use adjustment periods of gaining and cutting to keep yourself in the body fat range you want to be at.

Now, if you weighted 220lbs and half was muscle you’d have 110lbs of muscle. If your body fat percentage is higher, let’s say 25% or so you might look “big” or “chunky” to some and “normal” to others but asides your mass you wouldn’t likely look very muscular. If you were to drop down to 10% body fat without losing any muscle however, your 110lbs of muscle would likely be noticeably more than mr. 85lbs. Of course size and strength aren’t directly correlated. They relate, at some point a muscle group is operating at maximum efficiency without adding mass, but there are also different types of muscle and a weight liften that weighted 160lbs vs. an endurance cyclist weighing 160lbs would look and perform differently.

Even in Islamic fundamentalist countries where women are covered head to toe there are creepers. It isn’t someone’s fault that others are creepy or rude, it isn’t your responsibility to have to educate them or change them or accommodate them. They just are. They always have been and they likely always will be. You decide what you want to do and you do it or not.

Women can wear pants because enough women decided they wanted to wear pants and weren’t going to let what other people said or did stop them. Society pushed back and they pushed harder and eventually they won out.
Men still struggle to be accepted for wearing dresses and “feminine” clothing in most of the western world.
We all have our battles.

People should accept nudity and especially breast feeding and not be weird about it, but what if they don’t? Do you want to be able to breast feed or not? If you want to do something and society makes it awkward, your choices asides from giving up are to either wait for society to do something about it or to do something about it yourself. In most places in the US to most people today there is nothing odd or shocking about seeing a POC sitting at a diner counter waiting to be served or seeing an interracial couple or seeing women wearing pants or driving a car or walking alone. The first times people started to do these things publicly you can bet that it could be awkward for those seeing as well as those doing.

But then we have a mini paradox again. If you won’t be naked because I make you uncomfortable to be naked with my behavior, but I behave that way because I’ve grown up in a society where nudity was sexualized, not getting naked serves to reinforce that social view of nudity.
People could change their behavior to make others more comfortable, but we can also choose to normalize a thing by doing it.
Even after desegregation, many people of both races often felt (or feel to this day) uncomfortable or odd doing things that were once socially taboo.
Of course Rosa parks and others could have waited until society made her comfortable to sit at the front of a bus, but instead they decided to normalize it at the cost of their own comfort for the sake of social change.

It shows that not just society, but many women themselves consider it a priority of existence to be a parent. Not just to have offspring, one can always surrender for adoption or donate sperm or eggs etc. but to hold the role of “parent” and “caregiver.”
In this same vein, while society sexualized the nipple, so do many women. Think of it this way- many people would be embarrassed or feel awkward etc. to be naked in front of strangers even if those strangers didn’t find them attractive or care. If I don’t care if you are naked, you are the one who cares right? What can I do about how you feel? Well- technically I can do some things right? I Can do things to make you feel more comfortable or assured in that situation right?

We decide what is important to us. If one wants to have children, that is no different than wanting a boat or wanting to build a house. You want it, but what you want and what you do to get it etc. are what they are. Lots of people die without having kids. Through history. Lack of opportunity or ability or desire or because their priorities didn’t allow it. Now to be clear- because we control society we can change the “rules” and we can make many “mutually exclusive” goals not mutually exclusive. We can’t change reality but we can change aspects of the world and we control society. So I’m not arguing against accommodations merely presenting that the thinking is inherently contradictory.

As a species we need to reproduce to survive. With the way our society runs we need to increase generational population to thrive. Child bearing is a net social benefit and on the whole it is a far more demanding process for women than for men. But- we also have this duality. We mystify the process. It is considered a right or a goal for many.
There is inherent contradiction there. A general argument is that a woman shouldn’t have to choose between a career and having a family- but that assumes inherently that having a family is some fundamental right or purpose of women.
So much if that is social and so much of it is personal- mental.

Enter a certain type of paradox. Women DO face predation and all sorts of issues unique or relating to gender and gender roles- because society infantilized and marginalized women, culture, customs, laws, practices, and perceptions reflect that and so we do often need special protections or considerations to attempt to balance out these things, but those dale special protections and such often reinforce the ideas that women need protecting or help beyond what a competent adult can provide themselves. A self perpetuating cycle of sorts. When we factor in the problematic but present biological realities- that men on average are stronger and more physically suited for exerting force and other primitive advantages, that pregnancy and related things are a biological reality that impacts women and defects their ability to function the same as men etc. we run into uncomfortable problems. The terminology doesn’t matter beyond our feelings.

Regardless of feminism and all the liberation and such- we cling to various traditional ideas about men and women and sexuality. While women have more sexual autonomy and social freedom sexually, we still face “stud celebration vs. slut shaming.” Despite increasing adoption of views that women can express themselves sexually and that women have sexual desire and can have pleasure and sexual aggression, our social roles still generally see men as sexual aggressors and women as sexually passive. Men “always want sex” and for women sex is a sort of nuisance. Women are “weak” and need protecting is a stereotype that many have worked hard to dispel but we still see the underlying principles in law- we still see it with divorce and child custody. The woman as the nurturer, the woman as the one needing protecting or who is harmed disproportionately by divorce etc.

So what is going on? Surely at multiple points in history and multiple places a man walking down the street shirtless would be quite a spectacle. Scandal even. In the modern western world on a hot day or in a beach town etc. topless men would be a common sight many places. How did we get from A to B? If men are sexualized- then topless men, unless oblivious to the fact, either accept that they may be sexualized- or in many cases embrace it. Many men go shirtless specifically because they want to show off their bodies, while for others it is functional- they are hot or doing things that clothes might impede or might soil or ruin clothing etc.

The social components of this go deep. In order to “free the nipple” without concern we need two things. As a whole it requires society to desexualize things like breast feeding and even the breast. Many societies now and in history have much less sexualized concepts of breasts.
That also means the ones showing their nipples need to be ok with showing them.
It is generally legal and acceptable, at least contextually, for men to bare their chests in public. But… men are sexualized too- and we can’t make it an issue of gender where one makes arguments for differences between male and female sexuality or expression because gay men exist- so men can and do sexualize other men.

You SHOULD be able to leave your phone on a park bench and have it be there when it comes back or to not lock your doors to your house without worry someone will rob you. It should not be on you to have to protect those things and people SHOULD just be decent. But… that isn’t how it is. You CAN leave your door unlocked, you CAN leave your curtains open and bank on the decency of your neighbors not to watch you change or shower- that said if you are very worried about it- you probably shouldn’t.
There is a personal perceptive aspect to this implied by all this. Mind set. This isn’t all about us and it isn’t all about other people. There is what other people should do or would be kind to do and then there is us.