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

Specialun · 30-09-2015 10:39PM #1

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 · 30-09-2015 10:41PM

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 · 30-09-2015 11:09PM

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

Guy:Incognito · 30-09-2015 11:10PM

Cos bewbs

Brian from Bray · 30-09-2015 11:11PM

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

Gbear · 30-09-2015 11:26PM

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 · 30-09-2015 11:27PM

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 · 30-09-2015 11:28PM

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 · 30-09-2015 11:37PM

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 · 30-09-2015 11:54PM

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 · 01-10-2015 12:01AM

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 · 01-10-2015 12:26AM

Boobs are like chips, other peoples' always look better

starling · 01-10-2015 12:44AM

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 · 01-10-2015 12:58AM

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 · 01-10-2015 02:06AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Boobs are like chips, other peoples' always look better

That's kinda the point of poker...

Lyaiera · 01-10-2015 02:09AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Boobs are like chips, other peoples' always look better

Some like crispy ones, some like...

The Backwards Man · 01-10-2015 02:10AM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Some like crispy ones, some like...

Sweet potato fries!!:pac:

EndaHonesty · 01-10-2015 02:12AM

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

No other way to see it.

gramar · 01-10-2015 07:43AM

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.

01-10-2015 08:50AM

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 · 01-10-2015 09:27AM

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.

01-10-2015 09:36AM

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 · 01-10-2015 09:46AM

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"

01-10-2015 09:49AM

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 · 01-10-2015 09:52AM

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 · 01-10-2015 10:05AM

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.

01-10-2015 10:14AM

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 · 01-10-2015 10:14AM

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 · 01-10-2015 10:21AM

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 · 01-10-2015 10:27AM

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 · 01-10-2015 10:28AM

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.

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

Comments