Why is it acceptable for guys to walk around shirtless but not girls. Watch

Anonymous #1
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
..........
0
reply
Luke5125
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by Anonymous)
..........
Sexism and societies weird obsession with hiding women's nipples
0
reply
Discrepancy
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Sad times.
0
reply
Trust Orang
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Because women possess organs biologically designed to signal sexual fertility on their torso.
6
reply
Anonymous #1
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
^ So do men - with their beards.
2
reply
Muudeey
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Anonymous)
^ So do men - with their beards.
So if we don’t have beards it’s ok?
0
reply
Alexty28
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
cos it would attract too many little pervs
1
reply
username4178876
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Trust Orang)
Because women possess organs biologically designed to signal sexual fertility on their torso.
I didn't mean to like it but it sounded very scientific 😂
1
reply
Anonymous #2
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Because men find sacks of fat sexy
0
reply
Wooord
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Mainly because a woman’s chest has always been sexualized
1
reply
as125
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Wouldn't mind tbh 😏
2
reply
sinfonietta
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Rather than women being allowed to go topless I'd rather men just kept their shirts on too.
2
reply
Khalid_
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Because girls have more private parts than men that should be covered. Men also cannot go around with really really short shorts and should lower their gaze.
1
reply
icequeenTM
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Anonymous)
Because men find sacks of fat sexy
Are you sure about that?
0
reply
Trust Orang
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Anonymous)
^ So do men - with their beards.
You could make the argument that the entirety of human biology is inclined to signal fertility, and so the focus on particular parts is a social construction. I would agree that some of its qualities are socially constructed, but I would argue that this was the result of biological actualities.

However, breasts, penises, and vulva are the most dramatic example of sexual dimorphism. This means that there is a reason to emphasise these parts over other parts of the body. For everything to be equally socially constructed, you would need to think that there are differences between women and men, which is self-evidently untrue.

Breasts are also not developed on children, in the same way male genitals grow during puberty. The reason nakedness in children is regarded as innocent has something to do with the fact that ordinary people do not find the undeveloped body sexually stimulating. There are paedophiles, but these people appear to be the exception rather than the rule. People react to these adult signs of fertility in an obvious sexual manner, but they do not react in the same way to children, demonstrating it to be biologically rooted as opposed to entirely socially constructed. (There are circuits in the brain that deal with sexual arousal/reproductive behaviours, and they're pretty old, which is to say they were evolved before the cerebral cortex, which deals with abstractions and semantic constructions necessary for elaborate social value systems.)

It appears to be the same across cultures and throughout history too, so the social construction is probably rooted in biology, as opposed to the social construction targeting these parts arbitrarily. At the very least, it shows that this emerged organically as a feature of developed culture. You could then assert that if this is only found in developed cultures, and not in undeveloped cultures, it is an important rule for stabilising societies in some way. The magnitude of which is not clear, granted.

Beards are a sign of fertility, this is a good point. While their are social connotations surrounding facial hair they are not as prohibitive as breasts. I imagine this is because facial hair is in a place that, if covered up, would make conversations awkward. It is not too different from head hair, which already has differing styles for the 2 genders, so a beard could be seen as an extension of that. That is an argument about the qualitative aspects of the biologically derived social constructions, in this case you'd have to acknowledge the biology first because growing these things requires the biological sex respectively. Less so because beards are not stimulated in the act of sexual congress.

Again, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you that some specific qualitative aspects of the cultural norms surrounding boobs are socially constructed. For example, there are situations in which it is not regarded as unusual or sexual to be naked; in a spa, public changing rooms (note that these are gender segregated), at hospital if you need treatment.

My argument would be that given the evidenced occurrence of social mores rising from biological necessity, the impossibility of changing human nature, and the ubiquity of similar rules surrounding modesty in almost all successful societies, (all modern economically developed nations without exception), the laws around boobs are necessary.

I want to make it very clear that this does not mean I think that everything about gender stereotypes is "good". I don't presume to address the moral claims here, only the practical one that in this specific instance, there is a compelling reason for the seemingly illogical ban on some nipples.
2
reply
Anonymous #1
#16
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Trust Orang)
You could make the argument that the entirety of human biology is inclined to signal fertility, and so the focus on particular parts is a social construction. I would agree that some of its qualities are socially constructed, but I would argue that this was the result of biological actualities.

However, breasts, penises, and vulva are the most dramatic example of sexual dimorphism. This means that there is a reason to emphasise these parts over other parts of the body. For everything to be equally socially constructed, you would need to think that there are differences between women and men, which is self-evidently untrue.

Breasts are also not developed on children, in the same way male genitals grow during puberty. The reason nakedness in children is regarded as innocent has something to do with the fact that ordinary people do not find the undeveloped body sexually stimulating. There are paedophiles, but these people appear to be the exception rather than the rule. People react to these adult signs of fertility in an obvious sexual manner, but they do not react in the same way to children, demonstrating it to be biologically rooted as opposed to entirely socially constructed. (There are circuits in the brain that deal with sexual arousal/reproductive behaviours, and they're pretty old, which is to say they were evolved before the cerebral cortex, which deals with abstractions and semantic constructions necessary for elaborate social value systems.)

It appears to be the same across cultures and throughout history too, so the social construction is probably rooted in biology, as opposed to the social construction targeting these parts arbitrarily. At the very least, it shows that this emerged organically as a feature of developed culture. You could then assert that if this is only found in developed cultures, and not in undeveloped cultures, it is an important rule for stabilising societies in some way. The magnitude of which is not clear, granted.

Beards are a sign of fertility, this is a good point. While their are social connotations surrounding facial hair they are not as prohibitive as breasts. I imagine this is because facial hair is in a place that, if covered up, would make conversations awkward. It is not too different from head hair, which already has differing styles for the 2 genders, so a beard could be seen as an extension of that. That is an argument about the qualitative aspects of the biologically derived social constructions, in this case you'd have to acknowledge the biology first because growing these things requires the biological sex respectively. Less so because beards are not stimulated in the act of sexual congress.

Again, I'm not entirely disagreeing with you that some specific qualitative aspects of the cultural norms surrounding boobs are socially constructed. For example, there are situations in which it is not regarded as unusual or sexual to be naked; in a spa, public changing rooms (note that these are gender segregated), at hospital if you need treatment.

My argument would be that given the evidenced occurrence of social mores rising from biological necessity, the impossibility of changing human nature, and the ubiquity of similar rules surrounding modesty in almost all successful societies, (all modern economically developed nations without exception), the laws around boobs are necessary.

I want to make it very clear that this does not mean I think that everything about gender stereotypes is "good". I don't presume to address the moral claims here, only the practical one that in this specific instance, there is a compelling reason for the seemingly illogical ban on some nipples.
0
reply
denyagoss
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Anonymous)
^ So do men - with their beards.
And their throats
0
reply
benjah
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Ikhan1)
Mainly because a woman’s chest has always been sexualized
with the exception of the victorian era
0
reply
Trust Orang
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Anonymous)
There are other reasons too, like how neurochemistry and social context operate bilaterally. This means causation in regards to stimuli socially defined as "sexual" (or any other language based semantic determination) and their social effects can be seen as the same thing (I can't explore this idea fully, so apologies for my oversimplifications).

This is a really really complicated topic that sits on many philosophical and scientific questions. Here are just a few:

- Are value systems that are natural inherently moral?
- What is sexuality, can it be defined, scientifically studied, and is it even real?
- Do we have free will, if so, are our thoughts/feelings restricted or created by our biological existence? How is this reconcilable with the naturalist and materialist view of truth?
- Can we derive a value system from objective "truth"?
- How far does society need gender norms, how far does it enforce them, is it right to abide the norms?

and so on...

Good fun stuff to explore, but there is so much we can't begin to find any sort of "correct" answer to the question here. Sorry I guess :P
0
reply
JaydorIV
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
shouldn't be acceptable in my opinion
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.55%
No (211)
76.45%

Watched Threads

View All