I never said it was a law that would make sense, but it wouldn't be the first law that had its roots in incredibly stupid ideas.Dags90 said:
Poll: Semi-nudity and different genders
- Thread starter MisterM2402
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In a lot of Muslim cultures, women's hair is seen to be a sexual thing so it's seen as taboo for them to have it uncovered. A lot of people in Western countries see Muslim women's hijab head coverings as a little odd, yet they'd be shocked at a woman having their chests uncovered.
Like women's hair, women's breasts aren't any more sexual than any other pretty part of them. The only part of the body which is intrinsically sexual are the SEX ORGANS, the entire rest of the body can be sexual if you're into that kind of thing, eyes are sexy, necks are sexy, MEN'S PECKS ARE DEFINITELY SEXY but those are allowed to be on show!
And what about flat chested girls? For countries where it's illegal for females to show their chests, are they not allowed to cool off like men, despite not having the fat deposits that people think are sexy?
And, yeah, I get the whole BOOBS WILL BE BORING IF WE SEE THEM ALL THE TIME argument, but that's basically saying WOMEN SHOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE SO WE CAN BE TURNED ON BY THEM MORE.
Like women's hair, women's breasts aren't any more sexual than any other pretty part of them. The only part of the body which is intrinsically sexual are the SEX ORGANS, the entire rest of the body can be sexual if you're into that kind of thing, eyes are sexy, necks are sexy, MEN'S PECKS ARE DEFINITELY SEXY but those are allowed to be on show!
And what about flat chested girls? For countries where it's illegal for females to show their chests, are they not allowed to cool off like men, despite not having the fat deposits that people think are sexy?
And, yeah, I get the whole BOOBS WILL BE BORING IF WE SEE THEM ALL THE TIME argument, but that's basically saying WOMEN SHOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE SO WE CAN BE TURNED ON BY THEM MORE.
Well i dont see a problem here. There are as much topless or nude women in adverts then men down here. And if you want to sunbath in the park, let em get some fresh air ladies. Luckily our society isnt so anal retentive about that topics.But as young teens get confused by nudity, young countries seem to do alike. You'll learn New Worlders.
It indeed would be something new to walk through the city centre and see a half naked women. But actually we are just not used to it.
It indeed would be something new to walk through the city centre and see a half naked women. But actually we are just not used to it.
I totally agree here.lisadagz said:
Main reason is that womens breasts are far more sexualised than a mans chest. Exposed breasts are considered overtly sexual, an exposed chest is not. Men and women should be subject to the same law wise, but the law will be hard to change, and public opinion even harder whilst this opnion is still around.
Personally I'd rather both genders cover up unless its for a good reason.
Personally I'd rather both genders cover up unless its for a good reason.
Well, actually your wrong here to a fairly large extent.MisterM2402 said:
The thing is that as gamers are mostly lonely guys in a male dominated area of interest, we tend to "notice" the outcry about female nudity more often. A lot of gamers also feel the need to "adapt" to political correctness in the hopes that by doing so it makes their hobby, and by extension themselves more attractive to the opposite sex... permavirgins that the harcore gamers are.
The whole "beefcake" thing can have a similar prescence when your looking at things like the muscle and fitness subcultures. You see a lot of arguements about how all these beefy guys with arms the size of their heads is both exploitive, and encourages young boys to strive to reach an unrealistic ideal of what is "manly", turning towards 'roids, and hurting themselves through extreme workout method and the such in pursuit of the goal.
Arguements about how it's okay for guys to walk around without their shirts if they are buff enough, are very similar to how women with nice chests wandering around bare or with very little is also encouraged. You'll notice nobody wants to see a pasty, acne covered nerd chest, or some fat girl wandering around in the same condition. The standard is actually one that applies to attractive people wandering around "exposed", rather than something slanted towards one gender or the other when you actually choose to look at the issue as a whole.
... and yes, people WILL cover the eyes of children around naked or nearly naked men. It's just that as guys we tend to notice is when someone cover JR's eyes around a bare breasted or scantily clad model, but pay less attention to the same reaction when say kids are around a Chippendales promotion.
I'll also say that sensitivity enters into it as well, that breast tissue is soft and sensitive, which you probably noticed (lol), for guys it's less of a big deal comfort wise to go walking around without a shirt. For girls it can be, and if the behavior is encouraged your basically looking at an arguement "hey, you should be a masochist to be more appealing!" more so that we currently already see it. It's not a MAJOR factor, but you have to understand that guys and girls really are differant, with some very differant anatomical needs.
Such are my thoughts.
Also, you should never, ever, take political correcntess seriously. Generally speaking if something is part of a politically correct stance, that's probably a good reason to assume it's wrong. There are exceptions, but simply put it's one of the biggest poisons on society right now.
In the context of this issue, I think a big problem when discussing sex and gender is the politically correct promotion that girls either generally do not like sex, or are in some way victimized by it. That's HARDLY the case, girls are just like guys are in this respect, and just as perverted (and I think it can be argued they are worse, having looked at material produced by and for both genders), sexuality being a "human condition" rather than a situation where it's driven entirely by randy guys and endured by the women.
99% of the stuff you see about there about women being sexually victimized by the media, is political in nature. Keep an eye on the agendas involved (which are always obvious) rather than the message, and always remember that this is one of the areas where guys and girls actually aren't all that differant, when you start hearing all the "OMG, misogynistic exploitation!" garbage. It's really pretty well balanced overall.
I've always wondered this as well. On a similar note. With film/game ratings for things, it will always say "nudity" or "scenes of a sexual nature" if any characters go topless or whatever.
However in Assassin's Creed (Mainly 2 and Brotherhood) there are a few renaissance-style pictures of nude men and women, yet there isn't anything on the box about nudity within the game.
Why is it not considered nudity if it's in the form of a painting by some hundred-years dead Italian?
However in Assassin's Creed (Mainly 2 and Brotherhood) there are a few renaissance-style pictures of nude men and women, yet there isn't anything on the box about nudity within the game.
Why is it not considered nudity if it's in the form of a painting by some hundred-years dead Italian?
Because boobs are amazing... Duh! If you had those orbs of power just hanging out well, our society would grind to a halt and production would almost cease to exist.
Our modern "civilization" would probably explode.
Serious.
Boobs are that amazing.
Our modern "civilization" would probably explode.
Serious.
Boobs are that amazing.
Because... Boobs in real life have 4 times as much power. Its true. Thats why Italians only drew pictures of them, so they got to see boobs but didn't destroy production.Davey Woo said:
I really think everyone who's making pseudo-intellectual feminist comments about it being a sign of 'women as property' is barking up the wrong tree. It's sex that's considered shocking, not female freedom. It would be equivalent to saying that the fact that men can't walk around with their penises hanging out is a sign of the evil gynocracy at work oppressing men's rights because they view us as property. If you want to see the world in terms of sexism then so be it, but other less dramatic explanations apply.
What we should be debating is why, in the 21st century and with religion rapidly dying, is sex still seen as taboo?
What we should be debating is why, in the 21st century and with religion rapidly dying, is sex still seen as taboo?
That might be a tad over-dramatic, but I largely agree. Case in point, I asked my epidemiology lecturer why funding for breast cancer eclipses prostate cancer funding to such a huge degree and he showed us charts tracking the rise of feminism and the rise of breast cancer funding. When men are literally dying because of political correctness it's a sign it's gone too far.Therumancer said:
Boobs are probably more distracting than a guy walking around without a shirt. Not to mention for the guys that are for this, if you've ever been to a beach that allows that, it's almost always the older women with sagging boobs that you'd see. Never have I seen a Megan Fox lookalike walking around with her tits out.
Yes, it's probably to do with the whole 'a woman being a sacred thing' and that a good preparation of people want women to look respectable.
...
Then again, this is the 21st century.
...Give it a few years and I'm sure women will be given the option. Not sure that every woman will be jumping for joy, mainly as a good number are really not comfortable with their bodies. But yeah, give it time.
Yes, it's probably to do with the whole 'a woman being a sacred thing' and that a good preparation of people want women to look respectable.
...
Then again, this is the 21st century.
Censorship in general has always been confusing to me. It's always inconsistent and hardly makes sense. As the OP said, when it comes to women's breast nudity, as long as you cover up the nipples it's ok? What would happen if a woman walked around outside topless, but she had opaque tape covering her nipples? Or even more interesting, what would happen if a woman was fully clothed head to toe, but she had holes cut out for just the nipples to show?
From what I have heard from people's responses, it seems that the degree to which something is arousing is a measure of how "bad" it is. Boobies should be covered because they give men boners, etc. So if this is the case, shouldn't sex icons like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt be forced to wear more clothes than the common (looking) folk? Shouldn't they be put under a higher amount of censorship, because they provide more arousal than most, and are therefore more taboo? Some people can be arousing whether their clothes are revealing or not. Should they have to wear burkas?
As for the below the torso gender bias, I have noticed something. In mainstream R rated movies, I have seen a penis many times, but I have never seen a vagina, that I can recall. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Monty Python's Life of Brian, various locker room scenes from movies have all shown a penis. But I can't recall ever seeing a vagina in a movie (without a rating higher than R). I suppose, if I look at the arousal=bad discussion, this would make some more sense than I thought. Because most of the instances I can think of that show a penis, it is done for the purpose of comedy. That could even be another discussion topic, the trend of men's sexuality being portrayed as a joke.
As for the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument. What a load of bullshit. If you REALLY think about the children you will realize that they start out their lives sucking on titties every day. Boobs are a natural part of their daily lives. Then at a certain point society TEACHES children that boobs are bad and must be hidden away (and not just boobs but all nudity). They LEARN that from the adults. If adults got out of the way and let children govern themselves (without teaching them all their judgements and shame) then kids would freely run around naked or wearing whatever the hell they felt like, or something in between. Toddlers run around in just diapers all the time. Then the grown ups intervene and say "No. You should be ashamed of yourself. The human body is ugly and shameful and should be covered up. Your body is shameful and should not be seen." In goes the poisonous shame. Children don't start out with body image problems. Those are LEARNED behaviours. They are TAUGHT to not be comfortable with their bodies. So when I "think of the children" I think that they are better off then we are, without all the bullshit judgements and shame about our bodies, and try to avoid imposing those judgments onto them.
From what I have heard from people's responses, it seems that the degree to which something is arousing is a measure of how "bad" it is. Boobies should be covered because they give men boners, etc. So if this is the case, shouldn't sex icons like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt be forced to wear more clothes than the common (looking) folk? Shouldn't they be put under a higher amount of censorship, because they provide more arousal than most, and are therefore more taboo? Some people can be arousing whether their clothes are revealing or not. Should they have to wear burkas?
As for the below the torso gender bias, I have noticed something. In mainstream R rated movies, I have seen a penis many times, but I have never seen a vagina, that I can recall. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Monty Python's Life of Brian, various locker room scenes from movies have all shown a penis. But I can't recall ever seeing a vagina in a movie (without a rating higher than R). I suppose, if I look at the arousal=bad discussion, this would make some more sense than I thought. Because most of the instances I can think of that show a penis, it is done for the purpose of comedy. That could even be another discussion topic, the trend of men's sexuality being portrayed as a joke.
As for the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument. What a load of bullshit. If you REALLY think about the children you will realize that they start out their lives sucking on titties every day. Boobs are a natural part of their daily lives. Then at a certain point society TEACHES children that boobs are bad and must be hidden away (and not just boobs but all nudity). They LEARN that from the adults. If adults got out of the way and let children govern themselves (without teaching them all their judgements and shame) then kids would freely run around naked or wearing whatever the hell they felt like, or something in between. Toddlers run around in just diapers all the time. Then the grown ups intervene and say "No. You should be ashamed of yourself. The human body is ugly and shameful and should be covered up. Your body is shameful and should not be seen." In goes the poisonous shame. Children don't start out with body image problems. Those are LEARNED behaviours. They are TAUGHT to not be comfortable with their bodies. So when I "think of the children" I think that they are better off then we are, without all the bullshit judgements and shame about our bodies, and try to avoid imposing those judgments onto them.
I said there isn't often a day I consider going to the beach. Perhaps I should've added "no matter the weather".bahumat42 said:
I'm not a beach person.
As I say with all these double standards (I may be beginning to sound like a broken record), it's partly a biological thing.
Men are meant to impress women, ie by baring their manly chests in the same way a peacock would display his plumage. In this way, it's more acceptable.
Women are supposed to pick and choose, in such a way that the sight of female skin would be a reward only for a chosen mate. In this way, it's less acceptable.
That and it's far easier to pick on women for "corrupting" young men because...I actually have
no idea on that one. Maybe something to do with the idea of men carrying down the family line, and again the idea of not tempting young girls into doing the same - trying to hold down the biological stereotype of the girl choosing the man who will give the best genes.
Men are meant to impress women, ie by baring their manly chests in the same way a peacock would display his plumage. In this way, it's more acceptable.
Women are supposed to pick and choose, in such a way that the sight of female skin would be a reward only for a chosen mate. In this way, it's less acceptable.
That and it's far easier to pick on women for "corrupting" young men because...I actually have
no idea on that one. Maybe something to do with the idea of men carrying down the family line, and again the idea of not tempting young girls into doing the same - trying to hold down the biological stereotype of the girl choosing the man who will give the best genes.