Poll: Semi-nudity and different genders

Recommended Videos

awesomeClaw

New member
Aug 17, 2009
1,831
0
0
steph01a said:
I think the males should be a little more mature about all this and not get all excited so often.
That´s alot harder then it sounds, mate.

OT: I don´t see why not. They shouldn´t be forced, but they should have the option.

So yeah. That was brief.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
You see crashing cars because of topless men?
I can guarantee you'd see it if women went topless walking down the street.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Legion said:
You see crashing cars because of topless men?
I can guarantee you'd see it if women went topless walking down the street.
I actually almost crashed my sister's Yaris because there was a shirtless jogger all buff and sweaty...

I've never actually seen a car crash because of sexiness except in those Allstate ads.
 

Hive Mind

New member
Apr 30, 2011
244
0
0
Woodsey said:
mercifulwrath said:
Woodsey said:
Because men find tits sexually attractive...

...duh?

I mean, believe me, if a woman decided to walk around with the old fun bags out then its fine by me, but its pretty obvious why they're not legally allowed in a lot of places.
Are there any women who like male nipples, and see them as sexually stimulating? There have to be right? The only thing is is if they are the majority.
Only in the same way that some people get turned on by feet.
'Cause feet are sexy.

What?
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Dags90 said:
Legion said:
You see crashing cars because of topless men?
I can guarantee you'd see it if women went topless walking down the street.
I actually almost crashed my sister's Yaris because there was a shirtless jogger all buff and sweaty...
Well if you are heterosexual and they were male then I am confused why you were staring.

If you are heterosexual and they were a woman then my point is proven.

If you are homosexual and this was a woman then I can still understand why you were staring because it would be an unusual sight.

If you are homosexual and this was a male then my point is proven still, as I was referring to the majority of people, and while I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals, it isn't as much of an issue, as seen by the fact that we don't have homosexual/bisexual locker/changing rooms. All it means is that men are more distracted than women. ;]
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Legion said:
Well if you are heterosexual and they were male then I am confused why you were staring.
If you are heterosexual and they were a woman then my point is proven.
If you are homosexual and this was a male then my point is proven still, as I was referring to the majority of people, and while I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals, it isn't as much of an issue, as seen by the fact that we don't have homosexual/bisexual locker/changing rooms.
If you are homosexual and this was a woman then I can still understand why you were staring because it would be an unusual sight.
The third option. Still, there's all sorts of environmental distractions that are possible but we don't go legislating against them because "might cause someone to crash". Hell, the big ones (that're legal) are probably sound systems... and children.

It's not exactly a compelling argument because, a.) as mentioned above, there are innumerable things that can distract drivers of both sexes we don't legisltate and b.) banning altogether would be needlessly broad, and the same purpose could be served by banning "sexy roadside jogging". And those cyclists in spandex.
 

conflictofinterests

New member
Apr 6, 2010
1,098
0
0
MisterM2402 said:
Why is it that it's more acceptable for public displays of male semi-nudity (i.e. topless) than for females? You see it everywhere: ads for fragrances, at the beach, on a hot day, on TV, in movies, etc. Men can just walk around with their t-shirts off, bare chested, and nobody cares; if a woman did the same, parents would be averting their children's eyes, media companies would be barraged with complaints and she'd be made to put clothes on or, laws permitting, even arrested (Can the police do that? It sounds plausible.).

Obviously, there are plenty of nude woman in more adult films and on Page 3 of the Sun, but male toplessness is a lot more common and a lot less frowned upon - why is that? When it comes to below-the-belt nudity, it's a different story; fully naked males and females are both a bit "taboo", if you know what I mean. What's so different about the other half?

EDIT: Another point I'd like to make - if you see topless women in magazines (like candid celebrity photos or whatever), only the nipples will be censored, usually with little stars. Men have nipples too, right? So it's obviously not the fleshy, breast tissue that's the "problem", it's the nipples - this makes less sense because the breast tissue is the only thing different between men's and women's chests (please correct me if I'm wrong).
It's somewhat balanced out by the fact that no one can ever really get away with showing male genetals. Maybe a womans. Maybe. But never a man's.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Dags90 said:
The third option. Still, there's all sorts of environmental distractions that are possible but we don't go legislating against them because "might cause someone to crash". Hell, the big ones (that're legal) are probably sound systems... and children.

It's not exactly a compelling argument because, a.) as mentioned above, there are innumerable things that can distract drivers of both sexes we don't legisltate and b.) banning altogether would be needlessly broad, and the same purpose could be served by banning "sexy roadside jogging". And those cyclists in spandex.
All valid points, but the difference is that breasts are considered a 'secondary sex organ' in the same way that our behinds are. The male chest isn't because it is merely muscle. Women have chest muscles as well, and nobody objects to them, but their breasts happen to be in front of them.

If it was okay for men to walk around with their arses out but it wasn't for women then sure, it'd be sexist, but breasts and chests are different.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Legion said:
All valid points, but the difference is that breasts are considered a 'secondary sex organ' in the same way that our behinds are. The male chest isn't because it is merely muscle.

If it was okay for men to walk around with their arses out but it wasn't for women then sure, it'd be sexist, but breasts and chests are different.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum in this thread, nipples are an erogenous zone in a fair share of men (Just over 50% according to The Journal of Sexual Medicine) and both share similar anatomy. The main differences in the actual tissue are the amount of fat/muscle, and that men usually don't lactate as often as women.

Or as Darwin said
Darwin said:
"It is well known that in the males of all mammals, including man, rudimentary mammae exist. These in several instances have become well developed, and have yielded a copious supply of milk. Their essential identity in the two sexes is likewise shewn by their occasional sympathetic enlargement in both during an attack of the measles."
 

steph01a

New member
Jan 5, 2011
71
0
0
Legion said:
Dags90 said:
If it was okay for men to walk around with their arses out but it wasn't for women then sure, it'd be sexist, but breasts and chests are different.
Women have a chest ..
Men have a chest ..

Women have breasts ..
Men have breasts ..

OK. Breasts and chests are different.

Women wear thong bikinis. (at least I do. OMG! It's out again!!)
 

DarkenedWolfEye

New member
Jan 4, 2010
214
0
0
The problem with shirtless women, as I see it, is that the breasts are sexual organs. Partners will often incorporate the breasts into foreplay, and they are as much a part of providing for a baby as the crotch area is. Men on the other hand don't have any distinctly sexual 'bits' on their upper body, so they aren't really exposing anything.
A woman taking off her shirt is essentially the same as taking off her pants. And I speak on this issue as a girl, mostly based on why being shirtless in public is an embarrassing thought for me.
 

Daffy F

New member
Apr 17, 2009
1,713
0
0
MisterM2402 said:
NinjaDeathSlap said:
Men don't have boobs. I thought that would be pretty obvious...
What's so "awful and needs to be covered up" about boobs, eh?
They're a sexual organ, so it makes sense to keep them covered up. Unless you're ona nudist beach it makes sense to keep your sexual organs to yourself.
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
it's gender bias yes, but the thing is, we've been raised to see breats on a women as something sexual, it's hard to get out of this mind set. it's a social type thing. i think if men are going to walk around topless so should women, partially for equality, but also partially for male reasons.
 

MisterM2402

New member
Nov 19, 2009
362
0
0
steph01a said:
Legion said:
Dags90 said:
If it was okay for men to walk around with their arses out but it wasn't for women then sure, it'd be sexist, but breasts and chests are different.
Women have a chest ..
Men have a chest ..

Women have breasts ..
Men have breasts ..

OK. Breasts and chests are different.

Women wear thong bikinis. (at least I do. OMG! It's out again!!)
Way to necro a thread. Was it really that necessary to post in an old thread such as this? Pretty much everything has already been covered.

OP
 

Ashcrexl

New member
May 27, 2009
1,416
0
0
it's pretty simple. men have much less control over their sexual drive. and that's about it, i think.
 

steph01a

New member
Jan 5, 2011
71
0
0
MisterM2402 said:
steph01a said:
Legion said:
Dags90 said:
If it was okay for men to walk around with their arses out but it wasn't for women then sure, it'd be sexist, but breasts and chests are different.
Women have a chest ..
Men have a chest ..

Women have breasts ..
Men have breasts ..

OK. Breasts and chests are different.

Women wear thong bikinis. (at least I do. OMG! It's out again!!)
Way to necro a thread. Was it really that necessary to post in an old thread such as this? Pretty much everything has already been covered.

OP
So why are people still posting in this thread? Old thread? *giggles*
 

SilentCom

New member
Mar 14, 2011
2,417
0
0
The reason why male toplessness is not censored is because men do not have breasts. Unless they have man boobs, in which case they should cover up because thats disgusting. Also, in shots of topless women with just the nipples covered up, IMO, that is still basically porn and more should be covered. It is pushing a little too far, sort of like those micro bikinis that only cover the nipples or barely covers the genitalia. I'm not posting any images, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, look it up.
 

the7ofswords

New member
Apr 9, 2009
197
0
0
Where I live there was a big deal about this in 1995 ... there were even protests involving topless women downtown. Many were arrested, and the whole thing went to court. The decision was that women do, in fact, have the right to go topless, if they want.

The protests stopped, and no one's seen a topless woman downtown since. None of these women, I think, really wanted to run around topless, they just wanted to make a point. And once their point was made, they covered up.