Why are men with their tops off ok but women with their tops off not ok

Specialun

Before the watershed

On soaps you might see a guy with his top off, or a soccer player running out of dressing room with no top on..but yet you see no female t!tties before watershed

John_Rambo

Specialun wrote: »

Before the watershed

On soaps you might see a guy with his top off, or a soccer player running out of dressing room with no top on..but yet you see no female t!tties before watershed

Probably because in real life you might see a guy with his top off, or a soccer player running out of dressing room with no top on..but yet you see no female t!tties.

The_Valeyard

I'm all in favour for topless women. Now where are my pervy dark shades

Guy:Incognito

Cos bewbs

Brian from Bray

Because mens boobs are symmetrical, womens ain't :pac:

Gbear

Going back to the root of that question is a bit of a puzzler.

Obviously religions are fond of shaming people's bodies and all that, but you can see where putting sex on a pedestal and the genetalia that go with it having some logical progression - it was an important part of society and one way or another norms grew around how it ought to be practiced to satisfy various interested parties.

But tits are for feeding babies, and I can't really think of where the shame in that could have evolved.

Were tits sexualised even back to the dawn of those religions or civilisations?
Why was that the case?
Is it just an extension of the idea that any element of attractiveness, even if it doesn't provide much useful information about the prospective mate, would be locked down to protect the woman's husband (who wants to protect his genetic legacy by ensuring fidelity) or father (being the guardian in charge of ensuring his genes went to a "good home").

Are there any major religions or cultures which have not adopted the attitude that women need to be hidden away without having imported the notion from elsewhere?

Obviously at this stage, you'd want to have your head lodged firmly up your hole to have any problem with women being topless.

DareGod

Gbear wrote: »

Going back to the root of that question is a bit of a puzzler.

Obviously religions are fond of shaming people's bodies and all that, but you can see where putting sex on a pedestal and the genetalia that go with it having some logical progression - it was an important part of society and one way or another norms grew around how it ought to be practiced to satisfy various interested parties.

But tits are for feeding babies, and I can't really think of where the shame in that could have evolved.

Were tits sexualised even back to the dawn of those religions or civilisations?
Why was that the case?
Is it just an extension of the idea that any element of attractiveness, even if it doesn't provide much useful information about the prospective mate, would be locked down to protect the woman's husband (who wants to protect his genetic legacy by ensuring fidelity) or father (being the guardian in charge of ensuring his genes went to a "good home").

Are there any major religions or cultures which have not adopted the attitude that women need to be hidden away without having imported the notion from elsewhere?

Obviously at this stage, you'd want to have your head lodged firmly up your hole to have any problem with women being topless.

D'ya honestly think anyone who opened a thread about boobs is gonna read all that?

Breaston Plants

Gbear wrote: »

Going back to the root of that question is a bit of a puzzler.

Obviously religions are fond of shaming people's bodies and all that, but you can see where putting sex on a pedestal and the genetalia that go with it having some logical progression - it was an important part of society and one way or another norms grew around how it ought to be practiced to satisfy various interested parties.

But tits are for feeding babies, and I can't really think of where the shame in that could have evolved.

Were tits sexualised even back to the dawn of those religions or civilisations?
Why was that the case?
Is it just an extension of the idea that any element of attractiveness, even if it doesn't provide much useful information about the prospective mate, would be locked down to protect the woman's husband (who wants to protect his genetic legacy by ensuring fidelity) or father (being the guardian in charge of ensuring his genes went to a "good home").

Are there any major religions or cultures which have not adopted the attitude that women need to be hidden away without having imported the notion from elsewhere?

Obviously at this stage, you'd want to have your head lodged firmly up your hole to have any problem with women being topless.

Wha??

Custardpi

Given the rarity of decent weather in this country it's probably a largely academic question for us. Should either sex feel compelled to throw caution to the wind & fling aside their garb Irishmen will of course be protected from the elements by their fine crop of chest hair as well as their carefully acquired layer of beer & batter burger fat. Irishwomen tend to be less endowed with either of these, making going topless a far more perilous pursuit for them.

indioblack

Gbear wrote: »

Going back to the root of that question is a bit of a puzzler.

Obviously religions are fond of shaming people's bodies and all that, but you can see where putting sex on a pedestal and the genetalia that go with it having some logical progression - it was an important part of society and one way or another norms grew around how it ought to be practiced to satisfy various interested parties.

But tits are for feeding babies, and I can't really think of where the shame in that could have evolved.

They are also sexual signalling devices.
The female human bosom is effectively "erect" all the time - more than it's requirement for feeding.
Therefore, it's a secondary sexual signalling device.
I claim this as an accurate, but boring, explanation.

ancapailldorcha

Good old fashioned religious oppression I'd say. Doing God's work has rarely been conducive to the improvement of women's welfare.

The Backwards Man

Boobs are like chips, other peoples' always look better

starling

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Good old fashioned religious oppression I'd say. Doing God's work has rarely been conducive to the improvement of women's welfare.

True, although in this case our welfare is probably better served when we wear clothes. Unless you're sunbathing topless or something like that, it's generally safer and more comfortable not to leave the girls out.

Azalea

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Good old fashioned religious oppression I'd say. Doing God's work has rarely been conducive to the improvement of women's welfare.

I dunno. I think it's more to do with women's breasts being sexualised, which I'm not sure religion is responsible for.

MadsL

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Boobs are like chips, other peoples' always look better

That's kinda the point of poker...

Lyaiera

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Boobs are like chips, other peoples' always look better

Some like crispy ones, some like...

The Backwards Man

Lyaiera wrote: »

Some like crispy ones, some like...

Sweet potato fries!!:pac:

EndaHonesty

Op you are fcuking right. It's straight up sexism.

No other way to see it.

gramar

Specialun wrote: »

Before the watershed

On soaps you might see a guy with his top off, or a soccer player running out of dressing room with no top on..but yet you see no female t!tties before watershed

It's ok to say titties.

Specialun

Specialun wrote: »

Before the watershed On soaps you might see a guy with his top off, or a soccer player running out of dressing room with no top on..but yet you see no female t!tties before watershed

Mainly because the female chest has been sexualised in our culture - whereas the male one has not. That is pretty much all there is to it really. Just read one of the many threads on this forum on the subject of breast feeding in public to see for yourself how adolescent even the thoughts of many 50 year olds are like on the subject.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

Mainly because the female chest has been sexualised in our culture - whereas the male one has not.

Not entirely true. A bare male chest was a no-no a century ago too - it was illegal for a man to go topless in the US up until 1936. Ironically, it was finally legalized because, in Westchester, New York, the county park commission would supply swimsuits and realized that supplying only trunks was a lot cheaper.

Of course all of this is thanks to the Victorians. Their attitude towards sex was so extreme that it became the norm to cover the legs of tables with long tablecloths. Prior to that toplessness and nudity was not that a big a deal, women didn't even wear underwear (why do you think the garter was invented?). It should also be noted that the Victorian period also saw the largest expansion in pornography in history.

Anglophone countries have retained this attitude towards any kind of nudity. Daytime adverts, for example, showing topless women are not uncommon in continental Europe, by comparison.

US appears to retain this puritanism much more than any other Western nation and some will remember how they had a near meltdown when Janet Jackson exposed her boob at the Superbowl in 2004. Unsurprisingly, as with the Victorians, the US also has the largest pornography industry in the World - some correlations are difficult to miss.

Which is why I said "our culture" and not "a culture 100 years ago" I am talking about the here and now and in Ireland. Not the US, the Victorians, or continental Europe.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is why I said "our culture" and not "a culture 100 years ago" I am talking about the here and now and in Ireland. Not the US, the Victorians, or continental Europe.

Which is why I said "Not entirely true"

True enough to carry the point. There is little other reason for peoples issue with seeing breasts on television other than the fact they are viewed as a sexual organ by many. Similarly the many threads on Breast Feeding in public - the vast majority of people who take an issue with it are doing so for similar reasons.

Sure if we wish to be pedantic we can add to it. To borrow from another user who wrote on the breast feeding threads - our species do not like to be reminded that we are "only animals" - but like to think we are something else above that - something special and other. There is an element of being reminded of our biological realities when we see the more functional parts of the human anatomy exposed from behind clothing.

But no I do not see the use of the word entirely taking away from the point much at all. Especially given a point that starts with "Mainly" is not making any claims to "entirely"

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

Mainly... subject.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not entirely true.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is why I said "our culture" and not "a culture 100 years ago"

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is why I said "Not entirely true"

Deleted User wrote: »

True enough to carry the point.

Let's Get Ready To RRRRUMMMMBLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

True enough to carry the point. There is little other reason for peoples issue with seeing breasts on television other than the fact they are viewed as a sexual organ by many. Similarly the many threads on Breast Feeding in public - the vast majority of people who take an issue with it are doing so for similar reasons.

TBH, I think the main reason at this stage that there is little demand for women going topless is probably from women themselves at this stage. Interest in baring all seemed to have weaned after the invention of the Wonderbra.

Sure, probably the same thing in many ways though. Because of how it is viewed - and how people are judged that do it - there will be little interest from most women to open that can of worms themselves and be the one to do it. It all feeds into each other. Again with the breast feeding threads - I have lost count of how many people on those threads comment that the women who do it in public - rather than hiding or slinking away - must just want to show theirs off in some kind of weird morbid exhibitionism thrill. The concept it might not have anything to do with anyone else _at all_ appears not to occur to them.

So yea - I would have little interest in it myself if I were in that position (which I am not being male - and not being in media ) - to face the twitter and social media storm of judgements and invention of motivations on my behalf that I would likely bring upon myself for exposing anything. From Janet Jackson who you mentioned - to Madonna and so on - I have read everything from the highest of praise to the lowest and vilest of Judgementalism from their on stage antics.

Not watching much television myself I do not parse many articles on the subject well - but I was interested to read in one article how much one of the Game Of Thrones actresses hates getting any clothes off and has asked the directors to simply stop asking her to do it. While in an article linked off this one the girl from Harry Potter has been saying how much she loved her first sex scene - scenes with clothing removal - and really looks forward to having to do more of them.

More power to BOTH of them I say.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is why I said "our culture" and not "a culture 100 years ago" I am talking about the here and now and in Ireland. Not the US, the Victorians, or continental Europe.

That's fair enough but "our culture" did not just appear from nowhere and it does not exist in a vacuum. The culture of today will obviously be influenced and informed by the culture of the past. Just as people living 100 years from now will be influenced by changes in our culture today.

The reality is that in Ireland breasts are seen as "sexual" by most and so a more appropriate comparison would not be "man with top off" compared to "woman with top off" but actually a man with his cock and balls hanging free and visible to all. Just saying.

I guess the better question would be "should society see women's breasts as sexual or not" and I think that the question can only really be answered by women themselves.

I get the impression that the majority of people, even men, would not feel comfortable at all walking around in public with their top off. So maybe seeing someone else do it makes them uncomfortable too? I don't know.

allibastor

Gbear wrote: »

Going back to the root of that question is a bit of a puzzler.

Obviously religions are fond of shaming people's bodies and all that, but you can see where putting sex on a pedestal and the genetalia that go with it having some logical progression - it was an important part of society and one way or another norms grew around how it ought to be practiced to satisfy various interested parties.

But tits are for feeding babies, and I can't really think of where the shame in that could have evolved.

Were tits sexualised even back to the dawn of those religions or civilisations?
Why was that the case?
Is it just an extension of the idea that any element of attractiveness, even if it doesn't provide much useful information about the prospective mate, would be locked down to protect the woman's husband (who wants to protect his genetic legacy by ensuring fidelity) or father (being the guardian in charge of ensuring his genes went to a "good home").

Are there any major religions or cultures which have not adopted the attitude that women need to be hidden away without having imported the notion from elsewhere?

Obviously at this stage, you'd want to have your head lodged firmly up your hole to have any problem with women being topless.

The old Romans and Greeks used to have Togas that would not cover up much.

I wish we were back there!!

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, probably the same thing in many ways though. Because of how it is viewed - and how people are judged that do it - there will be little interest from most women to open that can of worms themselves and be the one to do it. It all feeds into each other. Again with the breast feeding threads - I have lost count of how many people on those threads comment that the women who do it in public - rather than hiding or slinking away - must just want to show theirs off in some kind of weird morbid exhibitionism thrill. The concept it might not have anything to do with anyone else _at all_ appears not to occur to them.

No, you misunderstand; I suspect many women would not be interested, not because breasts are sexualized, but because, for many, they look a lot better in Wonderbras than out in the open where gravity can have its cruel way.

The Corinthian

allibastor wrote: »

The old Romans and Greeks used to have Togas that would not cover up much.

I wish we were back there!!

You'd probably already be dead.

Potatoeman

Gbear wrote: »

Were tits sexualised even back to the dawn of those religions or civilisations?
Why was that the case?
Is it just an extension of the idea that any element of attractiveness, even if it doesn't provide much useful information about the prospective mate, would be locked down to protect the woman's husband (who wants to protect his genetic legacy by ensuring fidelity) or father (being the guardian in charge of ensuring his genes went to a "good home").

It would also be to protect her. There was no social protection back then so it was not just for men.

allibastor

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd probably already be dead.

Yeah, probably.

Thrown from that cliff in Sparta and all.

orubiru

orubiru wrote: »

That's fair enough but "our culture" did not just appear from nowhere and it does not exist in a vacuum.

Then you will likely share in my joy to discover that I did not suggest either of those things One can however comment on current culture without requiring reference to how it came about.

It is all alien to me I have to admit - I never acquired any issue with nudity growing up. Quite the opposite in fact as the friends I had during my 11 - 16 period - and the friends I have now from age 26 to present day - were quite nudity liberal.

I hung around with guys and girls who thought nothing of stripping off and changing in front of me - school uniforms into something else while going out somewhere - swimming naked - whatever - and I not only thought nothing of it - I thought SO LITTLE of it I was relatively old before I even copped how many people have issues with nudity.

So when anyone gets uppity about "Oh no we saw a penis" or "Oh dear god a child might see a grown adult naked" - I simply can not get myself into the head space of what the issue even is.

So when you say something like "I guess the better question would be "should society see women's breasts as sexual or not" I would not only entirely agree with you - but I go even further. Mere nudity itself as a whole - is it really all that sexual? It certainly is not for me - it has to be nudity AND context for me to make it sexual - so it is just one of those many areas in life I struggle to get into the head space of the perspectives of others.

orubiru wrote: »

I get the impression that the majority of people, even men, would not feel comfortable at all walking around in public with their top off. So maybe seeing someone else do it makes them uncomfortable too? I don't know.

Agreed - but I would add that that is likely complimentary to what I am saying rather than distinct from it. People do not like being judged and I suppose the fact is that if you stand out in such a way - judged you will be. And not even with nudity - I have been in groups of guys who will spot a guy wearing a pink shirt - and will enter into conversations about how high an opinion of himself sexually or masculine he must feel to believe himself capable of "carrying off the look". Though admiteldy less and less as time goes on as more and more men do it. But there certainly were some viciously judgemental and aggressive conversations I have been privvy to merely for a pink shirt.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you misunderstand; I suspect many women would not be interested, not because breasts are sexualized, but because, for many, they look a lot better in Wonderbras than out in the open where gravity can have its cruel way.

Ah indeed I see your point - certainly agree with that - and it does fit in well with my original point too - linking it back to the effects of these things being sexualised.

The Corinthian

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah indeed I see your point - certainly agree with that - and it does fit in well with my original point too - linking it back to the effects of these things being sexualised.

Sorry, but there's nothing sexualised about a pair of breasts that resemble golf balls in socks.

Please - under no circumstances provide examples of what you mean - I prefer to remain ignorant on this one.

Buona Fortuna

Given the choice I prefer women with their tops off to men with their tops off anyday of the week and twice on Saturday.

biko

If women on soaps took their tops off I might actually start watching the horrid things.

Are the sight of them so good - but so rare - that you would feel compelled to engage in such extremes of masochism in order to attain it?

Menas

To those of you wishing women would take their tops of before the watershed - I say "Emily Bishop". Picture that.

Buona Fortuna

Menas wrote: »

To those of you wishing women would take their tops of before the watershed - I say "Emily Bishop". Picture that.

Depends. Its been a while

OhDearyMe

I see a lot of breasts on a fairly regular basis living in a country with hot Summers where people have no qualms about being topless at the public pools. I go topless myself because no one bats an eyelid (or at least do a very good job pretending they're blasé about it!) and I feel I may as well take advantage of the liberating feeling while I can. All ages, shapes and sizes go topless there and not just the young, hot women. It's funny that once I leave that setting, being topless becomes an "issue".

razorblunt

Why are soaps allowed on tv at all at all?

The OH has finally given up on Eastenders and it's constant mopey nature, I think the drug dealer death in Corrie has her barely hanging on too.

gramar

razorblunt wrote: »

Why are soaps allowed on tv at all at all?

The OH has finally given up on Eastenders and it's constant mopey nature, I think the drug dealer death in Corrie has her barely hanging on too.

Is that because she's not getting her fix?

razorblunt

razorblunt wrote: »

Why are soaps allowed on tv at all at all?

My memories of what soaps used to be like - my parents watched some of them too - are one of the main reasons I maintain the status of having no television in our house at all. They simply are not for me - but some people seem to get something from them. I can only imagine what.

NachoBusiness

Tbf, I think women are mostly responsible for commodifying their own bodies, especially in western culture. Dressing in ways which slightly expose their breasts, they sexualize them. Same with having a slit running down the side of skirt. That's revealing flesh in a quite deliberately sexual way. Flesh in and of itself is not sexual. Sure women wear a hell of a lot less at a swimming pool and nobody would realistically suggest they were dressing that way as a means of titillating.

I agree that there is no call for any of this to change, for the simple reason that it benefits women. If it was the norm for women to have their breasts exposed, society would be blasé about them and I don't think that is what is wanted. I think that is what lay at the heart of those who were against Page 3, wanting it banned and not at all for the reasons which they had sanctimoniously cited.

Have to say though that I find it quite bizarre that it's socially acceptable for women to dress in a quite explicitly sexually provocative fashion, but yet also at the very same time, it's taboo to condemn them for doing so. Not suggesting they should be condemned, they should be able to do dress how they like, but I think when women dress to elicit a sexual reaction, they should be open to criticism for doing so. If I wore some jeans that were sheer and you could see my penis all night as I walked around, surely I shouldn't be able to play the victim when I'm critiqued for doing so and it's suggested I'm just looking for attention, but I see this happening all the time when women dress that way.

Another thing I find bizarre is how women will wearing revealing clothes and cover themselves then when they are out. Take this morning's photos in the media of Kendall Jenner, where she was wore a dress that exposed her nipples and her underwear, as an example. You can see her holding her purse in front of her panties. Bit late now I'm thinking. URL="http://assets-s3.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/article_photos/226450f835d8e16e12186f7485333a3bb69c55a4.jpg"]Censored version of the photo[/URL. I found some better shots elsewhere though, so all's good.

tonycascarino

To add to the OP question. Why do women not get embarrassed going around a beach in a bikini but would get embarrassed if someone saw them in their lingerie?

OhDearyMe

In all honesty, not being able to display our bare breasts in public is not that big an issue for most women, I'd say, and I don't see any mainstream protests about it. As someone said before, it probably suits women to have them undercover for a variety of reasons.

The only issue relates to breast-feeding - why is it in other European countries boobs are viewed sexually but nobody looks twice when a woman breast feeds in public? Why is Ireland different?

Kev W

OhDearyMe wrote: »

In all honesty, not being able to display our bare breasts in public is not that big an issue for most women, I'd say, and I don't see any mainstream protests about it. As someone said before, it probably suits women to have them undercover for a variety of reasons.

The only issue relates to breast-feeding - why is it in other European countries boobs are viewed sexually but nobody looks twice when a woman breast feeds in public? Why is Ireland different?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TuiHxtEGe9M/UmdjWKpLCaI/AAAAAAAAA4A/G4ie5SRV1qI/s1600/Angry-priest-.png

OhDearyMe

@ Kev W: It's accepted in other European countries where the church would still be very much a presence.

OhDearyMe

OhDearyMe wrote: »

The only issue relates to breast-feeding - why is it in other European countries boobs are viewed sexually but nobody looks twice when a woman breast feeds in public? Why is Ireland different?

Hard to say. But this story springs to mind:

http://www.thelocal.de/20150708/breastfeeding-in-public-is-natural

And I think it gets repeated in many countries. But my feeling is the majority have no issue with it really - just the usual tiny loud mouth group of people who find offence - and the larger group who love to take offence at that offence