Fat guy can expose his breasts in public no matter how big, yet a woman can never expose hers in public. Is this acceptable?
Of course it is!
When it comes to a fat guy and a regular woman, their breasts are no different! It is misogynist to be ok with a man's pair of plump breasts but not ok with a woman's. If everyone sees breasts as sex objects, then stop with the double standards! Makes no sense
Posted by: TheINFJNalaThere is a difference
A man's breast aren't seen as sexually provocative. A man's breasts isn't considered to be "private" parts. Thus, it is more acceptable for them to expose them. Women's breasts are symbols of sex. To expose them leaves a certain impression with people who see them, nl. A sexually provocative impression
Posted by: Erika113A woman's breasts are sexual
A woman's breasts are historically sexual, since they provide nourishment and life. Female vaginas are only attractive because they relate to creating life. The only reason things are sexually attractive is because "society" regards them as attractive, and I'm pretty sure a fat man's breasts are not considered sexually arousing by "society". I still don't wanna see a fat shirtless guy in public though. Lol.
Posted by: Mongol1
Its ok ladies!
If guys can go topless in public then why shouldnt women be able to it doesnt make any sense? Because some people might be uncomfortable with it? That is their problem. Give women the exact same freedom to go topless that men have already no more no less i think thats fair.
Posted by: StefyTotally Different Ideas
Think of it as such, a mans boobs are not a source of any sexual tension. While on the other spectrum female breasts actually represent fertility. When someone sees the breast of a man they don't necessarily think "Hey that must be one fertile man." On the other hand it's basic human nature to think the same thing about a female. It's ingrained into human nature to want to get with a woman who is more fertile, and thus produce more offspring. Is it right that woman are forced to go with a top, probably not, but it's not easy to change human nature.
Both should be considered acceptable, however
I think from an equality standpoint it should become considered acceptable by society however biological human behaviour makes it difficult for a majority of people to see it that way. The fact is just has we protect our sexual organs with clothes for acceptance and this acceptance is motivated by the protection of our sexual organs for the survival of the spieces. The same thing occurs with female breasts and more specifically nipples. Due to females needing to produce milk to assist in the survival of babies, they have been protected for centuries. Due to this, I see it as perfectly fine for a women to go out topless from a fairness perspective however morally I find it a little uncomfortable, likely due to the explanation I gave above. However, I feel that if a serious campaign (maybe a topless strike) occurs then society's views will change. Ultimately, I support the idea of sexually equality and if we are to achieve this we need to view females dressing without any protection of her breasts as acceptable
Posted by: LocinatorMan boobs shouldn't be exposed in public any more than female breasts should
Man boobs especially should never be exposed in public because they frighten the children and confuse the babies. But in all seriousness, laws or lack hereof on this matter should be the same for both women and men. If men can go topless, then so should women. The converse should be held true as well.
Posted by: cludwig
I disagree to a point. Yes, they are not breasts in the sense that they are not secondary sex characteristics. However, it is fallacious to assume that no one is attracted to men's nipples or "manboobs". The human race has shown an amazing capability to develop sexual attractions to just about every part of the body, conventionally attractive or no. So, whether or not someone can be attracted to you based on an exposed piece of skin is not in contention here. If we attempted to shun all those who displayed any qualities that could cause attraction, we would most likely have to forfeit our physical forms, or at least cover our entire bodies. The difference is not sexual attraction, but the fact that the same area of the body, for men, is not a secondary sex characteristic.