Women march topless in Portland. I love this part:
Why have a march if not to attract attention? I think this woman was just "enraged" because her march was making men happy, or at least interested. Maybe the men should have just looked bored. Would that make her feel better? Probably not. I assume that whatever reaction the men had, it would be the wrong one for this organizer. And honestly, if a large group of men were walking around Portland topless, I dare say that many women would stop and stare, or at least wonder what was going on.
Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.
However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers.
Why have a march if not to attract attention? I think this woman was just "enraged" because her march was making men happy, or at least interested. Maybe the men should have just looked bored. Would that make her feel better? Probably not. I assume that whatever reaction the men had, it would be the wrong one for this organizer. And honestly, if a large group of men were walking around Portland topless, I dare say that many women would stop and stare, or at least wonder what was going on.
posted by Helen at 7:14 AM
88 Comments:
I suppose she'd like it more if men didn't have any sex drive at all and never looked at women or interacted with them in any fashion.
Lots and lots of women would really be up the creek without a paddle if they couldn't use sex to manipulate men. Maybe they should rethink their outrage.
Mark Levin said that from the way the women looked, not only should they be clothed, but they should be wearing burkas. "Take that and run with it, Media Matters!"
My first thought was what you had said, why do it if you don't want attention? But also, if women were going around topless, guess what? They'd be getting stared at. Duh. These efforts by feminists to make sure that people think that there are no differences between the genders (except when it's convenient for feminists) are often laughable.
Target, wow, you're right on — well, on target!
I would not look,
I would not stop,
not if there were three,
I would not hop.
I would not ogle,
I would not stare,
I think there were 57 in that crowd,
not on a dare.
I like 'em,
to be sure,
women that is,
like they care!
Except for you and my Mom,
you care,
but that's different,
and this doesn't rhyme.
"Lots and lots of women would really be up the creek without a paddle if they couldn't use sex to manipulate men. Maybe they should rethink their outrage."
Not for no reason did Tom Leykis note many times to confused female callers, "the only reason most men talk to you is because you have a vagina."
On the note of would-be sexual manipulation, I was just reading a plot summary of "Gone With The Wind," in one portion Scarlett visits Rhett Butler - in jail! - and tries to seduce him into paying her tax bill. Unlike what most men would do, he laughs in her face! She attacks him and faints. So she does the old-fashioned thing, and marries a man who will pay her debt.
Enraged by the turnout of men looking at their bare breasts?
What bimbos!
I gues none of them actually knew any men.
Trey
whatever reaction the men had, it would be the wrong one for this organizer
In other words, a typical feminist.
"the only reason most men talk to you is because you have a vagina."
LOL. On the other hand, many of my actual friends who happen to be female are of average attractiveness or less but they developed a personality rather than fret over their looks.
Target, if most women realized the power that they have over men, they’d be ruling the world!
"Target, if most women realized the power that they have over men, they’d be ruling the world!"
----------
I don't think so - I think they are pretty much milking it right now for all it's worth.
I'm not manipulated by it, and there are some other men who see it, but lots of men are working their butts off for lazy housewives, lots of men are losing out in the workplace because of chivalry and there is a huge, huge, huge flow of money from men to women in various ways (not just taxes, dates, alimony, there are many ways).
Women are pretty much working every angle right now and many of them are aware of their manipulation. The women with nothing to offer - who think that men are so interested in them for anything other than their crusty vagina - are idiotic, but they wouldn't pull much more out by being aware of their manipulation instead of doing it unconsciously.
"Some happily posed for pictures."
Not all of her posse agrees with her position.
Why are some women and men so intent on desexualizing themselves? I really can't fathom the point.
I entirely agree that women should be allowed to go topless, though solely on the condition that I be allowed to openly ogle whom I will.
There are several women I know and know of who should be protesting....
Most men like breasts. If you put them out in plain sight, we're going to look.
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Get over it.
Why are some women and men so intent on desexualizing themselves?
They've bought feminist lies about men.
A female friend of mine said she was taught the standard trope about "what men want", but that she figured out it was BS once she started interacting with real live men. If only more women were so perceptive.
"I'm not manipulated by it, and there are some other men who see it, but lots of men are working their butts off for lazy housewives ..."
----
And what is pathetic is that men rationalize. They think that right now he's got her back (ummm ... like working in a soul-destroying job in a corporation for 25 years), but she will have his back. It's a partnership.
And then he loses his job after decades and has trouble finding a comparable one. All of a sudden he's a loser and they have grown apart and he doesn't fulfill her emotionally and blah, blah and all the rest.
Then he finds out that women file the vast majority of divorces. If he had only kept up the income stream, he never would have noticed that she will not "cover his back" and he is being manipulated with sex and CHIVALRY.
I don't even get irritated with dicks who tell me all about how their wife would do the same for them ... I just wait.
It's like women in the workplace that wear short skirts and show lots of cleavage and then get outraged that men hit on them and think it's sexual harassment.
Why isn't it sexual harassment for women to dress in a sexually provocative manner in the workplace?
Oh, I know, because men aren't children that need protection from women in the big, bad world.
"Why isn't it sexual harassment for women to dress in a sexually provocative manner in the workplace?"
--------
Frankly ... it is. But everyone knows that one type is going to be treated as sexual harassment and the other type isn't. In fact, if you mention it to Human Resources, one of the cunts there may get you in her target sights.
I've read this article several times and am still a bit confused. Is there a epidemic of bare chested men in Portland, Maine? If it was somewhere in Florida or Venice Beach I could see that maybe they want the right to sunbath topless....but it's Portland, Maine for crying out loud!!!!
It's simple. Sometimes the women just want to hang out together.
"Why are some women and men so intent on desexualizing themselves?" I agree with your point about feminist folderol, but some others try to desexualize themselves after being sexually abused. It feels more safe to them.
However, none of the people I know who were sexually abused try to desexualize themselves by showing their breasts in public. But then the survivors I know are not bimbos.
Trey
The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on.
I propose we expand this experiment. Women should go topless and be shown topless where ever you find men without shirts or where ever men without shirts are pictured, TV, magazines, the beach, construction sites, etc.
I bet tonight's NCAA womens' b-ball game would get higher ratings if they played shirts vs. skins.
I love a parade. Of any kind.
Calling it a "purpose" won't wish it into being.
Going against the grain of human nature is hard.
As often happens when people decide to give their lives over to a dumb idea, all that these women have really accomplished is to look like complete fools and to make feminism look like a species of adolescent silliness.
Is that a saving grace?
Agreed LordSomber ...
While they're at it, they might as well protest the wind blowing or the sun rising in the morning or the tides rising and falling.
I think they just enjoy the opportunity to prove to themselves once again how awful men are.
That's too bad because women who like men have a whole lot more fun.
... and they get a whole lot more financially out of men than the men expected.
There is a whole social system that men just don't look at that will enforce the woman getting money out of him - up to and including regular payments for the rest of her life (with no requirement to reciprocate anything).
Whether the wind blows or the sun rises or the tides rise or fall, men can still THINK, but they don't where women are concerned.
I have seen men WORSHIP women who show no sense of fairness or justice whatsoever, no sense of empathy, and no feeling of guilt about taking everything she can from a man.
These men eat it up. They only complain (and sometimes become MRAs) after all the money is taken and she cuts it off (direction: New sucker with fresh money).
If they have a good job (a doctor would be good), they may be played their whole life. That translates to a truly good woman who is worth more than her weight in rubies and other gems. And then she gets a fat butt and a frosted, short haircut and a demanding, bitchy attitude and ... well ... he's been with her such a long time. And he doesn't want to die alone.
Men are smart with regard to taming nature and extremely, extremely stupid with regard to manipulation by women. I guess that's how nature set it up - otherwise women would have gone the way of Neanderthals a lot quicker.
I find Ms. McDowell's complaint to be typical of many young women I know - doing something with completely predictable consequences and then crying foul about how it turned out.
Normally this is of the form of sleeping with a one-night stand and then complaining he's not interested in dating, or dating an asshole and then complaining he's mean, or marrying a stubbornly imperfect man (because there's no "spark" with a dandy who folds for her) and then complaining he won't change the way she wants him to.
Last weekend I was in a nightclub in a large east coast city. I hadn't been to one of these in a while, I was shocked back into the reality of society. The mostly white, middle-upper class twentysomething clientele was treated to a bar employee standing on a table atop a pail of Bud Lights, shaking her ass in the faces of patrons. (She had quite the endurance, keeping it up for two hours).
Meanwhile, women in the club were encouraged to hop on the bar and do their own dancing, shakin' it as guys tried to touch them from the floor. The only thing missing was the dollar bills, but for this they received free shots from the bartenders.
It was classic and simple - girls doing whatever they had to do to get attention from guys (in the tackiest ways to boot), guys doing whatever they had to do to get access to a girl's passion persimmon for the night.
Sexual promiscuity - one-night stands, no commitments, not wisely screening partners - is dangerous stuff. AIDS should have taught us that, but instead we get a new generation of "sex-positive" college counselors telling people to wrap it up and hop on.
This promotion is imbalanced. Along with sex promotion and instruction, female chauvinists (which includes many men) have fiddled with the laws and the college policies so that in the event of a negative outcome from sex, a woman can "take it back" by retroactively criminalizing her partner. If it doesn't go exactly as she wants it, she's been "taken advantage of." If he doesn't want to date her, he can be branded a predatory rapist...if he does want to date her and she'd rather move on, he's a clingy stalker.
As soon as any negative feelings or consequences emerge, like Cinderella she transforms back into a helpless victim of the patriarchy. But until that point, sexual looseness is promoted as grrrl power, getting back at men for generations of oppression and manipulation.
(This is completely denying the fact that throughout history, a few top men have had their pick of partners and most men have to settle for whatever they can get. One of feminism's great lies was to pretend that the power enjoyed by the upper crust of men was something all men had.)
In the MRA community I hear a lot of criticism about "misogynism" and "respecting women," as if we are supposed to defer to people simply because of their chromosomes.
I watched this club scene this weekend and thought to myself, "what about this meat market am I supposed to be respecting?"
(Equal time: I don't really respect the guys in this scenario either, but I also don't hear them complaining the girls they take home aren't interested in commitment.)
"One of feminism's great lies was to pretend that the power enjoyed by the upper crust of men was something all men had."
----
They go even further: When it comes to rape, all men are 17-year-old, top-fit, muscular men at the peak of their sexual desire.
But when it comes to earnings, all men are 58-year-old vice presidents with 40 years of experience at one Fortune 500 company and masters in business and engineering.
---
Otherwise, I completely agree with your post, Topher. But men are not only the ones enforcing these contradictory positions of women, they are also agreeing with them as the VICTIMS. Whatever a woman says is whatever reality is.
"I propose we expand this experiment. Women should go topless and be shown topless where ever you find men without shirts or where ever men without shirts are pictured, TV, magazines, the beach, construction sites, etc."
The typical response to this is that women's chests are sexual and men's are not, but that's not really true. What really seems to be going on is that women's sexuality is protected and pedestalized by society. Women get turned on by half-naked men just like the other way around, but it's OK for that to happen while women's breasts must be hidden by black tape at the magazine rack (no pun intended).
FWIW, I would rather nobody's chests were seen bare in public. Society is so over-sexualized.
"Whether the wind blows or the sun rises or the tides rise or fall, men can still THINK, but they don't where women are concerned.
Men are smart with regard to taming nature and extremely, extremely stupid with regard to manipulation by women."
I think this goes both ways - when sex hormones get involved, men think with their junk, and women think with their junk. Just as in your example of asking a man why he's with a shrew, ask a woman why she's with an abusive asshole who happens to be really good-looking and sexually dominant. You will be treated to rationalization and stonewalling only equaled by a Clintonian politician.
If you sleep with a college slut, call her the next day and be a kind of creepy nice guy. Let her then dump you. It is far, far preferable to simply not calling her, forgetting her and then getting some kind of a summons in the mail (or, worst case, having the police break down your door and leading you off in handcuffs for rape).
Everything is on her side. Let her dump you and grin about it. It's better than going to jail.
This only affirms my belief that our nation was at its pinacle and began to go downhill with the death of disco and loss of The Rat Pack.
"Everything is on her side."
Words to live by. You can play, boys, but play smart.
In fact, men who value their freedom shouldn't be involved in one-night stands or frat party sex at all. Way too risky when your liberty depends solely on someone else's opinion of how you performed, what you should feel towards her or whether you are good enough to be seen with her sober.
It serves them right for hiding them the rest of the time!
On a more serious note, if I walked around with my external genitalia dangling about, I imagine it would attract a LOT more attention than these women experienced. One important difference is that my little experiment would end with me in handcuffs.
Her comment is especially ironic given that a woman going topless in Portland, Maine is not illegal. So this was not an act of civil disobedience as women have done in other locations. It was strictly for the attention.
"she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers."
Maybe they will rub our faces in it. Will they be expecting tips?
Someone remind me why there is an epidemic of breast augmentation in the US?
They want the power of femininity without the responsibility. Rots o ruck with that.
when I was young, thin and had 32Cs, I went to a topless beach. Got so worked up I had to leave.
I promise to ogle with the highest degree of respect or pity or whatever you think you want. That's what I'm thinking, trust me.
....make that PERKY 32Cs.....
I wasn't looking for pity, believe me.
If women walked around topless every day, nobody would notice.
Men would quickly figure out that breasts are not the source of their confusion about women.
And women would lose that asset.
rhharden: I agree, but that would take at least 2 generations.
Helen,
Remember that women WANT the attention of 10% of men, and DON'T WANT the other 90% of male attention.
That is why women dress in a racy way (or in this case, march topless), but then complain.
They want Alpha attention, but not Beta attention.
She's enraged by the turnout of men? Really, now--I believe the ladies are deluding themselves.
Men tend to prefer female figures that resemble hourglasses, not 2 liter bottles. Besides, the women who participate in such topless demonstrations showcase breasts that have more in common with half-filled water balloons than with the fruits with which more desireable breasts tend to be metaphorically compared (tomatoes, grapefruit, melons, and the icon of bust perfection, the gazonga). I'm sure that men in the crowd could be heard uttering such expressions of desire as "I wouldn't hit that on a dare with a stick."
Is that sexist? I hope so!
Men better watch out for these aggressive women. Depending on the fellow's height, he might get a bust in the mouth.
During their march, I wonder how women who have had mastectomies felt about this. Were there women who had a mastectomy marching? Or folks who have lost women to breast cancer?
I bring this up because, as a man who has had this issue strike close to home, there was a period where I resented/repressed sexual associations with breasts.
I don't think that the issue is simply whether they are covered up. If that's the case, would males not be attracted to female bodies if always uncovered?
Is the "evolved" argument that breasts are neutral and genitals are the sole element of sexual attraction? Maybe it's all about the elbows?
Just thinking out loud here...
PS: If these images aren't loaded, hows come I can't find me no good 'uns via oogle or spewtube?
I agree with you, Dr. Helen. No matter what reaction the men had, McDowell would be enraged and complain. In fact, I suspect that's the whole point of the topless march.
Men ogling at topless women.... what's next women ogling over some pro athletes butt?
Ok...I stand corrected...here's the video...complete with soundtrack and a few moobs to boot.
http://vimeo.com/10683927
My last post...(there's been a 7.8 earthquake in Sumatra, and I have a friend there)..
Physical sexuality, spiritual sexuality, pheremones... what draws one to another is part of the beauty of the human species. I prefer not to try to figure it out. Each of us (men and women) have needs, desires, dreams. I resent feminism trying to dictate how I should feel or act. They don't succeed because it is a cultural issue, not a political one.
Why have we missed an opportunity to put a video of these "silly" females on YouTube. They want publicity give them International publicity.
Mark Levin was "spot on".
kmg,
You are wise. Once I came to understand the biological fact that is female primate hypergamy and the 80-20 Rule, many behaviors by female humans that didn't make sense all of a sudden did.
For one, it made traditional "morality" - the assignment, by society, of monogamous marital partners - make historical sense. It was a way of ensuring that a few men didn't monopolize the many women who wanted them.
Now that young American women are "liberated," the system assigns even more power to the super-alpha males feminists supposedly wanted to take down. The feminists' about-face when it came to the womanizing Bill Clinton was as clear as any sign of what feminism was really about.
The purpose of dinner tonight was for my children to have the same reaction to brussel sprouts as they do to ice cream.
Didn't work either.
Yep. All the photos I have seen are taken from the rear. Kind of defeats the entire purpose of what they were trying to accomplish.
It had to have been a hoot to be there. I mean any large group, of either sex, cruising the sidewalk "topless", would draw attention. It's a cinch half of them just wanted to show of their boobs.
Would I be dating myself if I mention that this reminds me of the old bra-burning days? Plenty of liberated young ladies in those days went braless simply daring any man to let his gaze drop below their chins. Should you succomb to the temptation you would immediately get the "women aren't sex objects" lecture. I guess some things never change.
Another thing that probably hasn't changed: Them what shouldn't are most likely to ...
If only Joe Biden had been there for careful commentary. A true boob summit.
So we spend more on breast implants and Viagra than we do on Alzheimer' research. One day we are going to have a bunch of old folks with perky parts and no idea what to do with them. I did view one video which showed the women from the front. The problem is that we usually see breasts covered up, and supported by foundation wear. Unsupported, over-sized flabby breasts are definitely not attractive. One woman was heard to say "Don't take pictures if we don't want you to." Hello? If you are out in public, in a public space, you may have your picture taken without your permission.
There is a reason super models get paid big bucks for being naked: they are really attractive, while most naked people really need to put clothes on. Maybe the laws about women needing to wear shirts is to protect men from visually demoralizing images.
Venus de Milo is worth looking at. The few in this demonstration who were attractive had their beauty diminished by the company they were keeping. And the women complained that men looked? And the less attractive complained that the more attractive got more attention? What are they thinking?
m said...
... (tomatoes, grapefruit, melons, and the icon of bust perfection, the gazonga).
I've always thought that the epitome was "like the bumper guards on a '57 Cadillac". Big chrome bullets with black rubber tips. Now that was a sexy car.
But remember guys, this blog belongs to a forensic psychologist. This post is probably an experiment in male sexual psychology. I'm glad to see we're living down to our reputation! :D
Dr. Helen's hubby links to this cartoon that pretty much says it all.
Gag me...I am watching my alma mater in the NCAA women's championship game, and they just interviewed Joe Biden. He said "I tell my granddaughters, you can do anything a boy can do. ANYTHING!"
Perhaps the organizers need this helpful hint from Monty Python:
How Not To Be Seen
Admire unapologetically. A walk bare-breasted is a troll. Whether for fun or example, never let another deny you the sweet pleasure of being a mammal with guilt in a pure expression of it.
The organizer's outrage stems from typical feminazi cluelessness. Yes, there is cultural disparity. However, expecting a topless parade of females not to attract a crowd of ogling guys makes as much sense as dragging a juicy leg of mutton through a pack of wolves and expecting them to look the other way.
Next time march in San Francisco. Then the oglers will be women.
How many women would like to go topless in city center, or man for that matter?
These women are just exhibisionists. The outrage at male attention is a huge give away. If they were sincere, they would like it, since that helps to proov their point. However, it seems their point got lost even on them.
Marching against implants; now that's a worthy cause!
I've noticed that, ever since the '60s, a lot of people seem to think that just because they hold a march or demonstration, the rest of society is supposed to snap to attention and comply. It has only worked in the cases of Ghandi and Martin Luther King and both of them endured a lot of jailing and beatings before they got results.
It's too early to tell if the Tea Parties will carry the day. I wish it luck, but I really don't want to get any long junk mail from any organization calling itself The Tea Party and asking for donations.
You don't set up a sideshow and then complain that people come to look at the freaks.
Dr. Helen, what a coincidence. Or perhaps a case of "great female minds think alike." ;-) I blogged about this very incident yesterday, too.
I find it sad, pathetic, and appalling on several levels. The fact that some women don't understand that yes, there are differences between men and women and what's acceptable for one gender isn't necessarily acceptable for another; is idiotic. I came to the same conclusion as you.
AST, absolutely!
I don't get it. If men can walk around topless women should be able to do so too. Many different areas of the world are okay with bare breasted women and complete nakedness. Other than our crazy twisted culture, there is no reason for a double standard. If more people saw what breasts actually look like then maybe people will quit having the expectation that most women aren't hiding large perky tits under their shirts.
Toplessness looks great.....on bodybuilders and some models, both genders. The rest of society should probably be more realistic.
Here's a woman using her tits to great advantage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAnrGdD29aQ
"I don't get it. If men can walk around topless women should be able to do so too."
-----
There should also be a law that women can pee their name in the snow.
If everything is going to be equal, Cham, I'd work on the bigger things first - like holding women to the same responsibilities as men.
Mary Rose and to all,
I actually have no problem with women walking around topless. It's the anger at men that I have a problem with. If you go around topless, men will look.
And Target is correct. If women want true equality, they need to shoulder the exact same responsibilities. They cannot yell one minute that they are not responsible because they are women, and the next say they are exactly equal. With equality comes responsibility.
Cham,
In portland, it already is legal for women to go topless. So what again was the protest supposed to be about?
I can pee my name in the snow already. I use either a freshette or an oil funnel. I'm pretty sure that it's legal, nobody has told me otherwise.
No, I don't think so, Cham.
Your little funnel has no pressure behind it, you are simply collecting your dribbly piss and narrowing it.
Try it in reality. You'll see what I mean.
But chicks don't seem to ever try out their scientific theories in reality. They just state them - and the same men who would get real specific with another man will just let women spout whatever they want without challenge.
So I'll repeat this: Walk around with your tits hanging out, I could care less, but your big campaign for equality should start with the major question of whether women take the same responsibility as men in life.
But nice rhetorical response.
What is the psychological explanation for all of these women who simultaneously want to exhibit sexual stuff, but want to lay into men for looking when they do?
I saw that back in my time at BigCorporationInc.
Some of the women would dress in a way that was as sexually provocative as they could get away with. Those same women were perpetually running to Human Resources because a man tried to talk to them. Or looked at them.
I mean, it wasn't the women dressed as nuns who had Human Resources on speed dial.
I can only guess that ...
1. They get an ego kick out of being the constant victim of men's attention. All men want them, but they just don't know why.
2. It's kind of a control thing. They want the 5% of super-duper men to pay attention to them, but they want to get rid of the rest without any effort. That's where Human Resources comes in.
3. ?? I really don't know. Boredom combined with some drama and attention from men?
What's funny is that feminists - or just women - get enraged about something (even something stupid like this), and lots of men actually listen to them and feel ashamed. Cuz women all have the higher moral superiority.
Just imagine if you told a feminist that she's not supposed to look at something. Even something that you intentionally dangle in front of her face.
She would go into an apoplexic rage and tell you to GO F#CK YOURSELF, SHE CAN LOOK AT WHATEVER SHE WANTS. Then she may spin her arms around like an airplane, or just lay on her back and kick her legs at everything.
In any case, she would not be amused at the same thing that she constantly demands of men.
Cham...put a topless picture of yourself on your web page. Let everyone know, in whatever blogs you go to.
Watch the hits go through the roof.
I'd go there just to see for myself. And if I liked what I saw, I might even return from time to time.
Just being straight up.
Br549:
Of course the hits would go through the roof, that would be because of the novelty of female toplessness. If women walked around topless all the time it wouldn't be a novelty and nobody would care what I looked like or anyone else. Our culture has made titties into the forbidden fruit.
No Cham, it's probably that a woman's breast has a sexual effect on a man - due to biology - and a man's chest does not have an exactly reciprocal effect on women.
And it takes a WHOLE lot of arrogance on your part to be so sure of yourself with your theory that everything is nurture instead of nature, which is exactly what the feminists are pushing.
My coverage in photos have been posted here: http://photos.tomcouture.com/p33263471
This comment has been removed by the author.
My coverage in photos have been posted here: http://photos.tomcouture.com/p33263471
So it's actually true then? Men only purchase Playboy to read the articles?
Topher: "Sexual promiscuity - one-night stands, no commitments, not wisely screening partners - is dangerous stuff. AIDS should have taught us that, but instead we get a new generation of 'sex-positive' college counselors telling people to wrap it up and hop on."
I agree with so much of what Topher has said in this thread. The hookup culture is hurting both young men and young women.
DADvocate: "I propose we expand this experiment. Women should go topless and be shown topless where ever you find men without shirts or where ever men without shirts are pictured, TV, magazines, the beach, construction sites, etc."
Topher: "The typical response to this is that women's chests are sexual and men's are not, but that's not really true. What really seems to be going on is that women's sexuality is protected and pedestalized by society. Women get turned on by half-naked men just like the other way around, but it's OK for that to happen while women's breasts must be hidden by black tape at the magazine rack (no pun intended)."
Agreed. And in that experiment, there would be quite the stirring if women were walking around topless -- at first. After a while, it would become more accepted and considered unremarkable. And those who think that no women ogle handsome shirtless men (not to mention everything-else-less men) are deluding themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home