Why is it that actresses, singers, and supermodels can all go anywhere they want obviously braless, and in some cases almost topless, and it is perfectly acceptable? But let the average woman run through her daily routine dressed half as "revealing" as they are and (for some people) the world comes to an end. Which brings me to another point. Not only is there a society and media perpetuated double standard between men and womens breasts, but also between some women and other womens breasts. Regards, Dave.
Yes Dave, we have talk about this before, and you are right, there does seem to be a double standard. Celebrities seem to be given more freedom in this regard than women in private life. I don't understand it either.
i don't think that there is a double standard between breasts of some woman versus that of others. since female breasts are considered sexual to socity, women use it to entertain
celebrities appear braless or topless when they're performing because they're job requires them to keep the audiences' attention. but they dress like the majority of women when they are not performing. a regular woman can wear revealing stuff or be topless when she wants to entertain, like in strip-clubs or to entertain her lover. all women, celebrities or not, call increasing attention to themselves according to how scantily clad they are.
There is such a double standard for different women and their different breasts! If you are older than twenty five in this country, and you have natural breasts, chances are some stupid guy has said that hers are not the type of breasts he wants to see, and so does not want top freedom. Believe it or not, it has happened in my conversations with others besides you, Elijah. It seems the standard of beauty here says that breasts must be high, round, full, with nipples pointing upward. Those are not the norm, in fact, are far from it, which is why so many women are having surgery.
it seems like most arguements of why women shouldn't be peer-pressured to wearing a bra, despite the firmness of their breasts, have a theme of social socialism to it.
in an capitalistic society (of traditional terms), the standard is set by the "strong"; the ones who are economically productive. and the rest are measured to that. many times the majority are playing a game of "catch-up" and never reach the ideal.
in social situations, the standard is set by the beautiful. whether they may be genetically gifted or had artificial stuff done. the bar is always being raised. and while i do agree that it is unfortunate for those who fall behind, there is nothing that can or should be done about it.
and eventhough i do believe in capitalism--economically and socially, i read a book about socialism to see what they had to say. an interesting point they made is that even though the bar is constantly being raised by the strong, the bar gets raised to a point that even the strong can't maintain; even the strong fall behind the standard in the long run.
i saw a diary about britney spears on mtv. it shows how she works out 2-3 hrs per day. and even with that, there was a period between albums where she gained "too much" weight and the entertainment "experts" commented about it. so even britney spears struggles to keep up to the standard which she created. the regular person has to struggle even more.
It is exactly this that I was referring to. How they dress when they are not performing. How many paparazzi pictures and video clips do we have to see to realize many actresses dress this way on or off the clock? Let alone the award shows that come right into the living room of millions of households. I don't have a problem with these actresses and supermodels dressing that way, I do have a problem with the media slapping every other woman in this country in the face with it. I just think every woman in this country should have the same right to feel comfortable dressing the same way they do no matter what she or her breasts look like.
I think there IS a double standard. And I think anyone with their mind out of the gutter for a little while can see it.
Dave, you make some excellent points, but it is clear that you making the point from a male point of view, which is ok and we women appreciate that. But let me speak for myself.
Non celebrity women (like myself) do dress braless more often than not, when we go out for a fancy dinner, night out with the slinky black dresses, that are either low cut in the front and/or in the back.
Nobody complains about that, either other women or men, it is just accepted by everyone.
Now, I for one, dress braless during the regular everyday day, but I do not flaunt it, never, never.
Now, on occasion, one might see my nipples protruding out of my top or blouse in the summer time, but those are rarities and quite often, I put a tape or other commercial nipple pads over it, so I do not invite stares to my breasts rather than my face.
So in summary, a certain way of dress behavior is the norm in certain situations, like an award show, and other times, in the office, there is a different norm.
Very acceptable to me, and so far, nobody has made a negative comment to me for being braless 95% of the time. I go braless for me, not to show off my nipples or my breasts.
Thank you for your reply. I am sorry that's all that you recieved from my post. I should have been more defining of what my goal was in my example.
I am not by any means saying that the average woman should have that same freedom for me or any other male's benefit. Or, that that's the reason they should do it. (However much the average male may enjoy the idea, and pick and choose which ladies should or shouldn't.) Which is why I used the word comfort, and made the point that what the womans breasts look like should not be a factor.
As you clearly stated. You do it for yourself, not to show off.
My wife would love to throw away her bra's. Not because she's trying to excite anyone, but because she feels more relaxed and comfortable physically without one "cutting off her circulation" as she sometimes puts it.
I am not female, nor can I pretend to know what it is like to be one. But I think I can understand my wifes reasoning for wanting to be able to be comfortable in public without a bra. Nipples showing or not.
I don't mow my grass topless during the summer to showoff my breasts or nipples to anyone. I do it because it's cooler, and I like the tan I get. If that excites someone, thats ok I guess. I've at least never known it to offend anyone. I think my wife should have that same freedom for herself, without feeling condemned, or that she's trying to be an object of desire.
It's too bad, Cindiee, that you feel you must put tape or pads on your breasts to hide your nipples. Just yesterday, and this morning I saw two examples of women, with bras on that were clearly nipping.
One was a parent walking to the front of the school to pick up her child. She was nipping and bouncing, so I wondered if she had on a bra, and sure enough she did.
The other was a bus driver who was taking her work shirt off to get back to her normal shirt underneath after the route. She too was nipping.
Why do I mention this? I believe it is so normal for womens nipples to show, even through bras, and no one says anything about it. Those women probably weren't even aware they were doing it. If someone had said something about it to them, they would have been embarrassed I'll bet, but no one did, and the world didn't come to an end.
So why can't bralessness be as normal and common as these other examples? Why can't I dress like a movie star and walk around town in a very low cut summer dress this season?
The answer is, It can, and I can. It is all up to me. If people make comments to me about it, I will just have to ignore them. They would get used to it, and the double standard would end if woman just did what they wanted, and stopped having so many rules about what is right and proper.
i don't see why women complain about having to cover just their nipples when it's more socially acceptable for women to wear less--on the street or at the beach.
men have to cover up their whole body on the street. in america, men rarely wear shorts that go much higher than the knee. but women are allowed to show a lot of thigh, abs and lower back, upper back (except for the usual straps to hold their breasts), shoulders, and upper chest.
at (american) beaches women have to cover their nipples but they can wear almost nothing around they're waist. and i think that this is fair because women don't need much cloth around the waist at the beach because they're genitals don't protrude, like mens. just like women cover up on top because their chest protrudes, unlike mens'.
men don't have it better than women. men and women have things differently because of physical differences (of what protrudes). i think we can all agree that protrusion calls attention to the part.
if you use an accounting method to figure out cost/benefit, one would probably calculate the difference of what each gender wears, by taking the weight of clothes than men or women have to wear and multiply it by how often they have to wear it. the number will be a lot lower for women. therefore women have less social rules telling them to cover up compared to men.
<if you use an accounting method to figure out cost/benefit, one would probably calculate the difference of what each gender wears, by taking the weight of clothes than men or women have to wear and multiply it by how often they have to wear it. the number will be a lot lower for women. therefore women have less social rules telling them to cover up compared to men.>
You're absolutely right, I never looked at it from that perspective!
Although I wear as much or as little as I please in any given situation, acceptable or not, the majority of men are controlled more closely.
I am impressed.
Yup, I've thought this many times. How much space could you take writing out the types of clothing that our society reserves for women but not men? And in particular, the types of REVEALING clothing?
Even Elijah, the guy whose posting I'm responding to, seems to think it's fine that women, but not men, wear small swimsuit bottoms--"they can wear almost nothing around they're waist. and i think that this is fair because women don't need much cloth around the waist at the beach because they're genitals don't protrude, like mens". In Europe you see small male swimsuits, protruding or not, "Speedos" or the like, but in America, it's cover that horrible male body up, or expect to get laughed at.
I'd love to see a different kind of attitude toward the male body, that says we're as good as women and equally worth looking at. I'm all for bra freedom, but then I'm all for freedom.
The irony is that this gender disparity has gotten much worse in recent years. In my freeballers forum we have had many discussions about how much longer and baggier boys & mens clothes are now than 20-years ago. Its one of many ways that males are more bashful about showing their bodies now. But except for bras, women haven't changed that much, although school dress codes are much stricter about what girls can wear now.
The diference is that while men are expected to cover up more they don't have to. Men can legaly wear about as little below the waist as women, plus nothing up top. Of course most guys wouldn't do that or risk being labled gay but the point is they could if they wanted to. We on the other hand don't have the option.
At the beach, yes. Men are quite restricted in the business world, and even at a formal occasion as to what is expected wear. In the business world women have the option of wearing pants or a skirt. If a man wanted to wear a kilt, he'd probably have a problem.
At a formal party a woman can wear as slinky an outfit as she is brave enough to do. A man is stuck wearing a tuxedo.
I don't really think that is needed, but a good dose of reality is beneficial at times, if only to maintain a positive orientation, and keep on line.
Men are socially more restricted in the amount of clothing or amount of skin shown. I am not allowed in most establishments with out a shirt on, and if I wore a bikini top, tube top, or skimpy halter top I would still not be allowed in.No shirts no service.
If I attend a formal function, I am expected to wear t-shirt, shirt, tie,vest/cumberbun (?),jacket and slacks.The female attending with me could concievabley wear an elegantly designed spagetti straped dress with maybe a slip or not if lined...thats it...end of list. And so which of us has the greater expectation placed upon them by society?
I would say that this same scenerio could be applied to lessor events as well.
Well I think Michaela raised a very good point. We are so concerned here about women not being able to go topfree at a beach or swimming pool, but the fact is, in MOST situations, women have much for freedom of dress than men do. They can wear anything from jeans to short-shorts, stretchpants to dresses, while men are expected to dress much more conservatively.
I still vividly remember siting in hot classrooms at school in hot long pants envying the bare-legged girls around me in skirts or dresses and thinking how unfair this was! Even today there are still many schools where boys are not allowed to wear shorts.
I've never heard of a school where guy's can't wear shorts and girls can. When I was in HS shorts were supposed to be mid thigh or longer. That absolutly killed me since I'm so tall and skinny, they don't make girl shorts in those preportions. Guy shorts are all to the knee so they could wear them no problem, while I was stuck risking trouble for wearing any of mine, not that I didn't bend the rules anyway, but always have a pair of jeans handy uncase I was forced to change, and I was.
When I was in school girls couldn't wear shorts either- but they could wear skirts and dresses so their legs were bare in any case. In fact, girls had no choice but to have bare legs or hose because they couldn't wear pants. So when it was cold, us boys had the advantage. Ofcourse, I just figured that girls had super tough legs and the cold didn't bother them.
Soon after I graduated H.S. (1965) the old dress codes rules changed and I saw kids going to school in stuff that would have been unthinkable just a couple years before.
But dress codes seem to be get stricter in recent years. And I have heard that there are some schools around here who don't allow H.S. boys to wear shorts. Don't know about the rules for girls.
I know the dress code at the high school here is outragously restrictive.
Most of the rules are only enforced if you are in a lower income bracket, and choose not to look like everyone else( goth attire that covers everything is not tolerated). On the flip side, if the girls choose to wear almost nothing(or what ever is not accepted in the dress code)and the parents are in the upper income group, they get away with it, especially if the male teachers recieve secondary gain of a voyeuristic nature.
That’s not entirely true, or at least it wasn’t at my HS. To hear the “freaks” (as they were known in the late 90s, now known as goths) tell it the cheerleaders and the preppies were all allowed to run around in micro minis and tank tops. They figured it was just one more way the popular girls had it better. To hear the cheerleaders and preppies tell it the freaks were allowed to wear see through tops and stockings and booty shorts. They figured it was because the administration was afraid of the freaks, so they let it slide (this was before Columbine.) The truth was that the dress code was enforced in the most random manor I’ve ever seen. Some students were the administrators pets who were allowed to get away with stuff because of that. Others had parents who knew the administrators or had some influence. Others had parents who were so bitchy to the administrators if they made their daughter call home (or worse yet work) to have mommy bring in a pair of jeans it was just easier to let that slide. Some male pervs let it slide because they liked what they saw, one math teacher springs to mind. I had one teacher who said that he stopped enforcing the dress code altogether when he sent a girl who was wearing cutoff shorts to the office. She had like 3 notes already to teachers who sent her there earlier in the day telling the teacher she was OK and could return to class. He sent her anyway since it was supposedly his job to do that. They sent her back with a 4th note telling him she was ok to stay in class. He said that after that he decided if they weren’t going to enforce it fairly across the board he wasn’t going to waste his time on it at all.
Back in my boarding school days I spent a semester working in the kitchen. One hot day I became a bit perturbed that one of my classmates could work in the kitchen wearing a short skirt while I was required to wear long pants. The next day I showed up in the kitchen with shorts under a borrowed skirt. The kitchen staff was outraged, but there was no rule preventing a guy from wearing a skirt. Point proven. The rules cahnged, and I moved on to the next issue.
just like with females having to cover their breasts, men aren't complaining at having to cover up more. it's part of the culture. culture makes life colorful. so even if it may not be fair for women to cover up their nipples and men to cover other parts, the vast majority are willing to put up with it.
i know (just from my experience) that most women have never questioned why their nipples have to be covered. therefore, it's unlikely that women will protest this "discrimination". it's something they just accept.
just like i never questioned why i can't show my midriff on the streets. i only thought about it when i posted it. it was something i have just accepted.
topfreedom and male-midriff freedom, as a revolution, won't be supported by most people. just like in canada: i don't know how it came about that women are allowed to be topfree, but they aren't embracing it.
i'd like to respond to a previous post from michaela. michaela said that there is a difference between men having social laws telling them what not to show, but women have actual laws forbidding them not to show their breasts--like actual laws are worse. as is seen in europe and canada, i think that social laws are just as powerful or more so than actual laws in terms of controlling what people do.
I find your female nipple / male-midriff analogy rather strange. They may be both disapproved in public but for very different reasons. Female nipples are covered because they are considered too sexual but I've sure never heard of anyone getting turned on by a guy's beer belly!
if a woman goes to formal function like an award show, dinner at a nice place, party, etc, then she probably has to show cleavage and maybe wear something backless. but i've watched enough mtv to know that celebrities dress just like the pic of britney spears on top when they're running errands and not performing. they wear jeans and a top. they especially have to dress normal when not performing to not be bothered.