This is a sequel to my earlier article, What is good for the goose is good for the women.

Recently, there was the report of three sisters riding their bicycle bare chested in Ontario, Canada. It was a hot summer day, so they removed their shirts to enjoy some breeze. A policeman, with puritanical and chauvinistic disposition stopped the female cyclists and directed tthe ladies to “cover up”. The ladies felt the policeman was trampling on their right to bare things (Canada ruled in 1996 that women have a right to be topless like their male counterparts ).

This precipitated a protest rally, with female participants insisting that “boobs are not bombs”, and the men should just “bare with them”.

Have a look at the report here

boobs not bombs

I have often wondered why the double standard regarding what constitutes “objectionable nudity”. Men can go bare-chested in public without anybody raising eyebrows, but not women (at least, this is true in most places). It is noteworthy that a woman could breastfeed a baby in public without men finding that improper.

What’s the difference? Is “indecent exposure” applicable ONLY to the genitals of the men, but includes almost all anatomical parts of the female? Who determines what’s proper or improper and what confers that right of determination?

It appears there are a few dimensions to this masculine attitude ‘woManchester’ exhibitionism. There is the religious, social and psychological angle go this. There seems to be this idea that nakedness is shameful. Why nakedness of any level is considered more shameful for the women is what is worthy of examination.

Here are a few passages in the bible mentioning nakedness.

Exodus 28:42 – And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Genesis 2:25 – And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

1 Timothy 2:9 – In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Genesis 3:10-11 – And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [was] naked; and I hid myself.

We can see “shame and nakedness” going parri passu, being inferred almost consistently.

images (15)

Because it is a man’s world, with the men taking the major decisions (politically, culturally, economically, socially and religiously), it is logical that what the (majority of) men consider ‘right’ has greater weight than the feminine view of things. Laws are meant to reflect the values of the MAJORITY, so presumably, the men who are a minor ‘majority’ are surely ramming things down throats (among other places!)

Men are said to be easily moved by what they see (unlike women who are not so easily riled up by a masculine figure). The sight of female breasts, given the attractive obsession it holds for males (from infancy), could easily constitute a distraction, say some men. Thus, women should always be properly covered up, in public.

There is actually a perfume, named “Obsession, for men”, with the naked picture of a woman adorning the.product, a testament to the belief that men can not quite help themselves, and are mostly like putty, when the women are baring their “weapons” (even when not deploying the full arsenal).

images (14)

It is noteworthy that in some parts of the world, the female breast is not over sexualized. There are nudist beaches in some parts of the world, where butt naked men and women co mingle without the men running amok. The Koma people in Nigeria also see nothing spectacular in a woman walking about totally bare chested. It is a way of life for them. This would seem to nullify the claim that some men may lose their cool if women go about with the same level of nudity freedom that their male counterparts enjoy.

It would seem that, our notion of what’s right /wrong, what’s proper / improper is a matter of several factors including cultural and religious upbringing. In Islam, lots of women adorn the hijab (specifically predominantly in the Northern part of the country), but men are totally free. What’s the equity in that?

A chapter of the Cleveland city code entitled “obscenity and sex offences” defines ‘nudity’ as ‘a female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple ‘. Incredible!

Have a look at some other sexist laws

A man raised in an egalitarian environment / society, where females and males see themselves as (sexual) equals would likely see nothing exceptionally arousing or distracting about a woman displaying her mammary endowment. Don’t men show their chests in public?

What is your view about this.?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *