Quote:
Originally Posted by Moontanman
Men have had the right to be bare chested in public for a very long time although at one time it was considered to be a bad thing very much like a woman bare chested in public is today. I can see no reason that makes a womens chest somehow more obscene or bad than a mans. Should women have the right to go bare chested in public the same as men? One thing is for sure if women went bare chested the same way men do it would take the wind out of the sails of things like topless bars and other places and things that use topless women or their images as a way to make money or other wise exploit women. August 23 there is will be a topless protest to show that women have the right to bare their chests the same as men. A woman breasts or nipples or chest is no more of a sex object than a mans and both should have equal rights.
|
Call it social conditioning, but I think a woman's chest is more of a sexual object (or two) than a man's.
I don't disagree with what the thrust of the OP is advocating for. But if saying that (protruding) breastesses are no more sexual than non protruding breasts, then that throws me for a bit of a loop. From that, I believe I could extrapolate argument that suggests genitalia is no more sexually obscene / stimulating when looked at than say navel, or thighs.
Somewhat related to topic:
> I've always been amazed at how much of a buttocks is allowed to be displayed. It's as if portion that is least protruding in this region is considered stimulating / obscene.
> I've also been curious for while why female in non see-through lingerie is considered inappropriate or risque, while female on beach in nothing but 2 piece suit is treated as normal, fun loving, appropriate attire.
