Double standards re: toplessness

[dalebert]

This is an ongoing issue for me. Let me preface by saying I'm a 100% gay man. I don't find breasts appealing to look at. They do nothing for me. Nooooothing... at... all.

The double standard seems quite sexist to me, pure and simple. And it's not just sexist against women by making them feel ashamed of their breasts. It's also sexist against men because the very strong implication is that men are animals who can't control themselves and respect boundaries if they see breasts. There are many cultures where women being topless is fairly trivial. They're even on billboards by the road. There are a number of differences between the sexes that I will always wonder--to what degree is a particular stereotypical trait biological or culturally promoted? This isn't one of them. There's plenty of evidence that this is cultural and therefore sexist and discriminatory. Women used to be expected to cover a lot more than just their breasts. It used to be obscene if a woman showed a little ankle. This is just the lingering aftermath of that same sexism.

I challenge any str8 man or gay women to convince me that breasts are more sexual to them than this...



...is for me. HUBBA, HUBBA! Is any moderator going to remove that picture and send me a warning for obscenity? Of course not. If I had posted a woman dressed exactly the same way? Think about that.

Even though I am a man and therefore a wild animal</sarcasm> I am completely capable of (and should be expected to) respect his boundaries whether he has decided to show his pecs or not. Frankly, if I do stare a bit too lingeringly and he catches me doing so, it probably wouldn't make any difference if he tried to cover them up. Those babies are going to show through most clothes other than a burka and I'm probably going to try to get a good (though discrete) peek at them either way. Sorry, I'm only human. 

[suzifrommd]

I'm not in favor of this particular cultural norm, but having been both a man and a woman, I understand it.

As a man, I was more easily stimulated by visual input. It does very little for my female sexuality.

Therefore, the sight of a bare male chest would probably not distract a straight female the way a bare female chest would distract a straight male. And I can understand the mindset where it would one would not want continually to be bombarded by sexually distracting input.

Of course, I agree this doesn't help gay men, who have men's receptivity to visual input AND are attracted to male chests. Unfortunately it's the straight folk that drive cultural norms.

I also hate, hate, hate the fact that it's turned into a moral thing - women who expose their breasts are attributed to be sexually loose, provocative, etc. That someone showing the world one's body is evil (rather than merely impolite in some settings).

[dalebert]

I'm not in favor of this particular cultural norm, but having been both a man and a woman, I understand it.

As a man, I was more easily stimulated by visual input. It does very little for my female sexuality.

Therefore, the sight of a bare male chest would probably not distract a straight female the way a bare female chest would distract a straight male. And I can understand the mindset where it would one would not want continually to be bombarded by sexually distracting input.

Fair enough, but that's as good a case for the burka as it is for a bra/top. Once people get used to it, it stops being distracting just as women showing a little ankle skin is no longer continually distracting and hyper-sexualized. Like I said, it's no big deal in some places in Europe. They aren't constantly having car accidents due to billboards with breasts on them.

Of course, I agree this doesn't help gay men, who have men's receptivity to visual input AND are attracted to male chests. Unfortunately it's the straight folk that drive cultural norms.

I assure you that while I like the sight of a nice male chest, it's clearly not a problem. In fact, the existence of gay men alongside a culture of male toplessness and no sky falling because of it is just yet more evidence for the silliness of this double-standard.

[Calder Smith]

I'm glad you posted this. I don't understand why it's perfectly acceptable for males to go topless but when women do it, it's graphic and they're looked at as a very sexual person.

When I was younger, I wanted to take my shirt off during the Summer like all the boys could but my mom said I couldn't because girls "aren't supposed to".

[muffinpants]

Fair enough, but that's as good a case for the burka as it is for a bra/top. Once people get used to it, it stops being distracting just as women showing a little ankle skin is no longer continually distracting and hyper-sexualized. Like I said, it's no big deal in some places in Europe. They aren't constantly having car accidents due to billboards with breasts on them.

I definitely agree with this sentiment, though I do admit, I have been culturally ingrained to not want to show my breasts off to anyone. But I always feel the same way after winter too, when I'm not wearing a jacket or I start wearing shorts again, I feel naked and exposed. Perhaps if I knew people wouldn't react differently to me going topless, it wouldn't cause so much stress... like if I think about going to a nude beach, I'm sure I'd be all over running around naked. I do at home all day, it's a blast. I know in some states, it is legal for women to go topless, yet they are still arrested by police officers and oogled by the public, but yeah, if it became more of a norm, I know things would change.


But I do have a question - are people allowed to show topless pictures on this forum if they have breast related tissue?

Hmm...

[kelly_aus]

I don't care either way, really..

But as a woman, I'm quite likely to cover up, more because I prefer a semi-covered woman - it gives the mind something to think about..

[Xhianil]

I wish i could go out without a shirt after HRT, but we live in a world were its frowned upon to go out in just a bra even, yet in my school girls dress slutty to look and be slutty and get away with it, today I saw a girl that'd look less slutty nude.

[Violet Bloom]

  I started a similar thread a little while back but from my female side of things.  The questions around this issue were never really resolved.  My question was how much breast tissue do you have to have before it becomes inappropriate to post?  This gets even more complicated when a transman has top-surgery and then suddenly can openly display photos of their chest even though it is made of the same skin that was formerly female breast.  And yet a flat-chested woman would not be allowed to post photos, while a man with moobs consisting of some actual breast tissue would be allowed.

  It seems to come down to an issue of gender inequality rooted in societal expectations.  This becomes thoroughly silly when someone can change their gender identity without changing their body at all and yet land on the other side of the rules.  Some members assumed I wanted to be some sort of exhibitionist by asking the question about whether or not I could bare my chest any longer.  This was not my intent at all, and no offense intended, but it was worrying that this would provoke a somewhat alarmist response like this.

  So I raise a new question - who exactly are we protecting with these rules?  Could we actually be hampering the efforts of women of all types to seek societal equality by enforcing them?  While I am directly addressing the website I'm going right beyond to the whole societal thing - Where do the uneven standards of "modesty" come from and why are they perpetuated?

  On the other side of the coin, and to end on a lighter note, I am attracted to female breasts but would note that a great many of said breasts are distinctly unattractive to me and I'm actually glad that many of them are covered up in public.

[muffinpants]

]

Hey everyone. Guess which is which.


It really doesn't matter and truly it is unfair.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-police-roll-call-reminder-women-may-go-topless.html?_r=0

At least many places are coming around. People need to start taking advantage of this!

[Violet Bloom]

  I spy an edit, so I guess the debate is still fair game.

[Nero]

  I spy an edit, so I guess the debate is still fair game.

Well, we've got to go by what 'counts as nudity' (in the US at least where the site is based). Exposed female breasts are seen as nudity while male chests aren't. It doesn't mean the staff or owner of the site necessarily agree with that view. We're classified and blocked as 'adult content' in many places already including libraries and schools. So that's part of the reason we've got to be careful. We're not taking a stand on whether the banning of female toplessness is right or wrong.

[Sarah Louise]

Ditto what FA said.

[Violet Bloom]

  Just to be clear, I wasn't taking a swipe.  Thank-you however for providing a bit of clear information from the website's point of view.  I agree that we're operating within an externally-reinforced structure whether or not any one person agrees with it.  I'm not even sure I have a firm opinion either way, but I've presented plenty of clear examples, not all unique to our community, that render the structure rediculous.  I would also note that there are loads of openly accessible non-sexualized breast reference photos on medical websites, mostly related to breast augmentation.  Unfortunately it is very difficult to locate reference photos valid to researching my development as an MTF due to the unfair characterization of the material.

  To sum up, I am pleased to at least be able to have a frank, open discussion and debate about this.  It really concerns me that through no fault of our own here on the site that the rules may actually be reinforcing the negative control-over-women and gender inequality aspects of society, in a manner of great irony.  Growing up as a male I wanted women to feel and be seen as equals.  Now that I am an MTF the situation has become much more personal.  As long as the site staff is clearly open-minded about this issue, as you say they are, then I am somewhat satisfied with how it is being handled.

[dalebert]

Well, we've got to go by what 'counts as nudity' (in the US at least where the site is based). Exposed female breasts are seen as nudity while male chests aren't. It doesn't mean the staff or owner of the site necessarily agree with that view.

I respect this, of course. Hopefully the climate will change but in the meantime you don't want to get people in trouble at work for looking at the website or get it blocked and so forth. Fortunately the legality of topless females as being nude is already being challenged. I know here in NH it's not illegal. A friend of mine got stopped by a policeman and he was about to arrest her but after being on his radio for a while trying to figure out whether she had broken any laws, he ultimately had to release her. Doesn't change the fact that someone called the police to complain and people will continue to do so until the climate changes.

The very existence of this site I think is a challenge the the notion of the double standard. How often do we have to educate people that gender is a spectrum rather than a binary thing? Is a pre-top surgery FTM (a man) considered nude when topless? Is a pre-HRT MTF (a woman) considered nude when topless? What about after one month of HRT? Three months? Twelve months? When? It's not fair to the moderators that they have to deal with these absurdities but deal with them they must because it's the bizarre, sexist world we live in for now.

[Violet Bloom]

  I'd ask, purely for clarity, how is someone's gender to be defined within the rules?  Many members have not (yet, but maybe never) changed their legal gender marker.  If going by legal gender marker then what do we say about Australia's Third Gender definition?  If going by professed identity then what do we say about the non-binary/genderqueer/genderfluid/androgyne/intersexed?  If going by the opinion of others instead of that of the subject person might we not run afoul of gender identity/anti-discrimination laws?  Certainly under Ontario law it's only going to be up to the individual to define their gender expression under the law - their physical traits would be legally irrelevant.  Should surgery or the inability to pay for it determine one's privilege to publish their photo?  Should the arbitrary wait periods to access surgery or change gender markers restrict the same privilege?

  If the website is operating under US laws is it federal law that applies or local state law where the host server is located?  Some states are taking the lead in advancing their own unique anti-discrimination laws to the degree already enshrined in Ontario's laws.  I would like to see the wording of the laws that cover this.  This is all really thorny but all of these questions and more need to be asked sooner or later.

  Not to be provocative, but as long as I remain legally male and present that identity to the public can I still bare my chest on the internet without any question of whether or not it is considered inappropriate?  (If you say "technically yes" then that's still a yes.)  Does it matter what my member profile says versus my legal status?  What if my identity changes after an 'acceptable' photo has been previously posted?  I am not personally trying to challenge the system here but I've met many militant activists who would happily go to war over any of the above.

[LivingTheDream]

As a man, I was never really all the comfortable shirtless, only usually did it at the beach, lake or pool, and that was because as a guy, you're sort of expected to. I know lots of guys who take off their shirts when its hot outside or when playing sports and stuff, but I never did that. Now that I have a lil something there, itty bitty boobies, I think those days are behind me. Idt I would take off my shirt now for anything.

I'd have no problem if they changed the law saying anyone can be shirtless now, but I wonder how many ladies would go shirtless if they could? I imagine if enough started doing it, it would become socially acceptable, and everyone would follow and it would become the new norm. I think it would be interesting if someone asked this question in a poll and or posted this topic elsewhere and see what the responses would be.

-Kelly

[V M]

Well, we've got to go by what 'counts as nudity' (in the US at least where the site is based). Exposed female breasts are seen as nudity while male chests aren't. It doesn't mean the staff or owner of the site necessarily agree with that view. We're classified and blocked as 'adult content' in many places already including libraries and schools. So that's part of the reason we've got to be careful. We're not taking a stand on whether the banning of female toplessness is right or wrong.

Very well stated FA

From a personal standpoint I take an artistic view of the human body and so the only time nudity bothers me is when I feel it is presented in bad taste which again is just my personal opinion

When it comes to following laws and rules my personal opinions are irrelevant

The decisions I make and/or actions taken are base upon the laws and rules governing each situation and my personal opinions have little to nothing to do with it

[Violet Bloom]

  I've been doing a lot of poking around the internet for US regulatory information.  It appears as long as you're not a minor, it's not pornography or obscene (legal definition of obscene), and you personally post it or consent to have someone else post it then it appears to be referred to as "mere nudity" and is not regulated.  If anyone knows different and can point to the specific legal references then please post links or quotations.  Even sexualized content seems to be a bit of a fuzzy area but this has nothing to do with the type of photographic content I'm referring to.  If breast augmentation photos can be hosted on a medical website for informational purposes without any disclaimer or viewer age verification then I don't see why we can't post purely informational non-sexualized content of females here.

  Possibly some useful reading here as a good general overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

  And direct from the US Department of Justice:

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_obscenity.html

[amZo]

It's not as acceptable as it use to be for men to go shirtless. These days, it is considered a bit obscene for men to go without a shirt in a gym (certainly now against the rules in most cases), but it was common when I was young.

[V M]

  I've been doing a lot of poking around the internet for US regulatory information.  It appears as long as you're not a minor, it's not pornography or obscene (legal definition of obscene), and you personally post it or consent to have someone else post it then it appears to be referred to as "mere nudity" and is not regulated.  If anyone knows different and can point to the specific legal references then please post links or quotations.  Even sexualized content seems to be a bit of a fuzzy area but this has nothing to do with the type of photographic content I'm referring to.  If breast augmentation photos can be hosted on a medical website for informational purposes without any disclaimer or viewer age verification then I don't see why we can't post purely informational non-sexualized content of females here.

  Possibly some useful reading here as a good general overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law

  And direct from the US Department of Justice:

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_obscenity.html

Good point

The fact is that Susan's is an inclusive support site which includes minors and their parents and/or family members and therefore pornography or obscene material is not allowed

Yes, we are a family friendly support site

Does anyone wish to deny support to our younger members and their families? I should hope not