NSFW: Does this make me sexist? (See details)

I don’t know if you’re being sexist but it sounds a bit librarianist. Do you know they’re reading romantic novels? Maybe they read 19th century Russian literature.

@janbb – Librarianist? Good grief. I am a card carrying MLS and I have never, ever been tagged with the label “librarianist”.

All of that said, @LostInParadise , this group’s actions makes you a bit prurient, very curious, and maybe a bit titillated. I’m not sure the sexist would be the proper term. Sexist means that you are discriminating (for or against) or disparaging one sex or another. I don’t see that in your comments – more of “what the hell is that about?” attitude.

The choice to be topless or not is personal. If these women want to take off their shirts and read books, so be it. Just like men taking off their shirts to play basketball.

The librarians I know don’t read romantic novels, so I would consider your conjecture baseless.

@elbanditoroso The facetious parallel is to sexism; a librarian wouldn’t be librarianist.

I watched the video and it seemed natural and not at all sexist. The only person that provoked a reaction for me was the one hefty guy.

@LostInParadise: “I think that covering one’s body with clothing is a generally good idea.”

It sounds like this is your objection to it. You are not comfortable with this level of exposed skin. That’s fine, as it’s really just a personal preference thing. If you are uncomfortable with men and women being topless in public, then that’s just something you may never be comfortable with.

However, I’m sure you recognize that men are allowed to go topless in public. So, your discomfort aside, I’ll assume you either support the right of women to go topless in public as well (or make it illegal for both men and women).

As for the apparent absurdity of engaging in a book club while topless – I think that’s probably the point. You’re seeing such a mundane activity, but because of the fact that they are not wearing shirts, it appears foreign and uncomfortable. You’re supposed to feel uncomfortable. They are trying to normalize the ability of women to be topless in hopes that younger generations won’t have to read a Salon article about women meeting for a book club or to have coffee. Think about what a revolutionary act it was in recent history to be an “interracial” couple and go out to eat in certain parts of the country.

I appreciate your answer, but it is difficult for me to see this as a major civil rights issue. Most people, men and women, prefer to go around fully clothed. I would be more in favor of placing restrictions on where people can go topless.

To what extent are women inconvenienced? Maybe if women are playing basketball in a playground then there would be an advantage, but I don’t know how often this comes up.

@LostInParadise: “I appreciate your answer, but it is difficult for me to see this as a major civil rights issue. Most people, men and women, prefer to go around fully clothed. I would be more in favor of placing restrictions on where people can go topless.”

You said people. This is why I said that you have two consistent directions to go here. Whatever restrictions you are proposing regarding exposed skin would have to apply to both men and women. The fact that men can walk around topless and women can’t in many areas is a double-standard.

@LostInParadise: “To what extent are women inconvenienced? Maybe if women are playing basketball in a playground then there would be an advantage, but I don’t know how often this comes up.”

Now you have switched from people to women. This is a huge shift, and one that is problematic. Now it’s not just a matter of personal preference. You’re supporting the rights of men and not of women.

I was tempted to go into details about why your double standard is consistent with many others that we have moved past, as well as go into details about why we don’t generally advocate for the burka or hijab for women here in the west. But it occurred to me that I would like to hear a case made for this double standard. The burden should rest with those trying to make an exception.

If possible, could you create a compelling case for not allowing women (just women) to be topless in public? Try to avoid “how much of an inconvenience” questions, because you wouldn’t apply this technique to anything else. Make sure that the principles you are employing here are applicable generally. And try to reference the difference between current decency standards and those of other cultures.

It is a civil rights issue. Why should females not be able to go topless in places where men are? Fortunately, NYC has seen the light and it is no longer illegal. It is about equal rights.

The Outdoor Co-Ed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society is just a group of women who enjoy reading and are taking advantage of this new right. It’s good to see that the group finally granted an interview.

Does it make you sexist? Possibly. The first label that came to mind is “old fashioned”. Let’s break it down:

My first thought on seeing the video is that most the women shown seemed to be in their early thirties with decent bodies and attractive breasts. I couldn’t find the exact article that you referenced, but in another, yes, the photos comprised of what you describe. Maybe that is a tactic used by the specific medias to lure readers.

My next thought was to wonder if any of them are married or are in a committed relationship. Can you help me have a better understanding of what you mean by this? Might their spouse/partner object to their joining of this club? If they do, is it wrong for a member to still participate? In a relationship, there is a fine line in adhering to when a partner puts their foot down and agreeing to disagree.

A book club of women reading romantic novels calls to mind the stereotype of the spinster librarian. Why is that, do you suppose? Do only older, single women who live the stereotypical mousy life of a librarian read romance novels? You know what would make for an interesting study? Going to beaches when they are in peak season and interviewing people about what they are reading and why. The survey results would be an eye-opener to society.

This group isn’t restricted to reading romantic novels. According to their site and a few articles posted, the selection is a variety limited to pulp fiction. Not all pulp fiction is romantic.

Something just seems to be a bit off. I could visit New York topless, but it is not something I have a burning desire to do. I think that covering one’s body with clothing is a generally good idea. With all of the warnings of excessive sun exposure we are aware of today, there is truth in that statement. I don’t think that is what you mean though. Would you mind explaining this in more detail?

Not sexist, just close minded.

Not everyone will live the life of college > job > family > boring suburban life.

@DoNotKnow “If possible, could you create a compelling case for not allowing women (just women) to be topless in public?”

Ok, I’ll bite. I don’t actually believe the argument I’ll put forward, but for devi’s advocate sake:

1. All reproductive organs should be clothed in public.
2. Female breasts are reproductive organs.
3. Therefore female breasts should be clothed.

Personally I disagree with the first premise, but I think this is the kind of argument you’d hear against women being topless in public.

@gorillapaws – Thanks. I’m curious about @LostInParadise‘s response. He might just be trying to figure out his own discomfort, and may not really be opposed to it. As a response to the reproductive organs argument – it seems to me that if one gender were to be allowed to go topless, it would be women. Their breasts feed the species. The lack of utility should make the exposure of men’s breasts unnecessary. :)

Sure… it’s legal… but if I whip it out to pee on a tree because my post-surgical bladder sphincter is weak I’d be arrested so fast sun exposure would be the least of my worries.

My equipment is “dual-use” so even though reproduction is the furthest thing from my mind when I have to pee, most states would consider the act indecent exposure and some form of sex offense.

I guess I’m missing the point. If you want to go topless, go topless. If you want to go bottomless as well, go ahead. It doesn’t change the fact that men and women are different. Women don’t wear jockstraps and men don’t wear bras. If your sixteen year old daughter was in this video, someone would go to jail. Or do you want to change that as well. Most men would find this titillating and I suspect the women do as well. Not much different than the old ‘burn your bra’ movement but updated for the next generation.

@Jaxk – Not that it’s relevant here, but this references some of the mythology surrounding the whole “bra burning” thing.

@gorillapaws – breasts are not reproductive organs. They’re food bearers. Reproductive organs are below the waist.

Secondly, men have breasts. Most small, but some not so small. Should men have to cover?

Just as a side note, I would welcome this movement on the stage of ‘Out Numbered’ but shudder to think it may be adopted by “The View’.

I don’t think you sexist. Personally, I think more exposure to the sight of boobs might lessen the obsession we men are cursed with regarding the nether regions of women’s bodies. Of course there are engineering considerations for a lot of girls which dictate structural support, but the stupidity of that catnip reaction inherent in we men is annoying.

@elbanditoroso If they’re not in the reproductive system, What system are the breasts in then?

You’re not being sexist, just normally prudish, in a US thinking way.

@gorillapaws Breasts are part of the glandular system. They are mammary glands. They are not necessary for reproduction, as women with surgically removed breasts can still get pregnant and bear children.

@zenvelo GA! (to @gorillapaws )

We can argue about what system of the body women’s breasts fall under but the truth is still, that in our society at least, and also for biological reasons, women’s breasts are part of her sexual allure. They also serve a biological function. Women should have the freedom to expose their breasts if they wish to and certainly not be stigmatized for nursing in public but I don’t think we have to deny the fact that they also serve for “titillation” in a way that man boobs don’t. So I will defend to the death your right to expose them, women readers, but I would find it a bit uncomfortable to be around. And I am not sexist. Nor would I judge someone who is not comfortable with it sexist as long as he is not trying to take away their right to do it.

I do think, as with any other issue, such as gay PDAs or transgender folk, the more one sees it, the more comfortable one gets with it. And that’s good. But to deny that women’s breasts are different from men’s seems an over simplification to me.

What appalls me is that they are reading pulp fiction.

This Q deals with the same issues. There seems to be a trend about this concept that somehow it only applies to women with attractive breasts, that they should or shouldn’t expose. Those of us older ones who are no longer considered attractive are mostly so conditioned to keep covered after an eternity for being held responsible for how men react that this wouldn’t be anything beyond an intellectual issue.

However, we are precisely the ones that this affects most, because we are the majority. We with the scars and the wrinkles, we with odd different sized boobs, we who are not “attractively breasted” by social standards. It is a comfort issue, a civil rights issue, a basic convenience issue.

@zenvelo I’ve never heard of the “glandular system.” I thought the glands were mostly part of the endocrine system. It’s not listed in the systems of the human body on wikipedia.

“They are not necessary for reproduction, as women with surgically removed breasts can still get pregnant and bear children.”
By this logic the labia minora and the clitoris would be excluded from the reproductive system.

Breasts have been listed as secondary sexual characteristics in both Western and Eastern medical literature for that past couple of centuries. These experts have been wrong before. I cite the voluminous 19th century medical literature on the causes of “bad morals,” “nymphomania,” and chronic hysteria in women: the main cause was thought to be clitoromegaly. This theory was mainly based on one very interesting mid-19th century study done in France with hundreds of Parisian prostitutes examined while in jail, and it was found that the majority of them had enlarged clitorii. Women born with large clitroii were therefore thought to be hypersexual with a tendency toward immorality by nature, in spite of any societal attempts to correct their behavior, and therefore the treatment was removal of the clitoris. Of course, we know today, after 75 years of serious, non-hysterical gynecology, that this is bullshit.

But as to the breasts being a secondary sexual characteristic, I believe the best test is the involuntary physiological reaction heterosexual males, such as myself, have when breasts are exposed to them. Their jeans suddenly get uncomfortably tight. Based on this study which I’ve conducted for more than half a century with the same result, I do believe medical literature has it right this time.

If the ladies in the park in New York wish to fight the forces of nature, more power to them. I’ve fought the powers of nature at sea, and trust me, she always wins.

No, I don’t think this makes you sexist.

Didn’t read the comments, but my first thought was, “How stupid!”
I would find it just as weird if a bunch of guys got together at a book club and everyone took off their shirts to read their books.

Having said that, I think that the sexualization of breasts is stupid too. However, we female humans did evolve to have breasts that make it looks like we’re lactating 24/7, 365. So they are tied up with fertility and sex, but as humans we make fools out of ourselves over them.

@Espiritus_Corvus the things that make men’s “jeans get tight” vary greatly from culture to culture and from decade to decade, and it’s always “involuntary.” They respond most strongly to those things that are “taboo.” At one time that included female ankles.

Just FYI. With so many green states, one would think that this wouldn’t need to be an issues.

Well, I have yet to see any topless women out in public…or in private, either, so obviously it’s still an issue. (Kansas here.)

It does not make you sexist. It makes you a normal, red-blooded American boy!

Unless you’re a girl, in which case many on the right would say it makes you a perv.

Exactly what makes him (but I think it’s a her) normal, red-blooded American boy @filmfann?

Seems that we’re drifting into the inevitable “but they’re arousing”. Let’s try to keep focused. Of course, they’re arousing. As a heterosexual male, I can’t think of anything about the female body that isn’t arousing. And breasts are certainly very arousing. I’m not sure what that has to do with this conversation, however.

Women used to have to go swimming in ridiculous outfits, and even had guidelines for measurements. Today, women walk around exposing skin that would have been considered obscene years ago. But because it’s been normalized, we no longer force women to cover their knees or not expose thighs because it may be considered arousing.

Whether or not a part of a female body may be considered arousing has nothing to do with this. If it did, we’d be talking about hijabs and burkas. But we’re not. We’re talking about older generations adjusting to the fact that things change. Standards of “decency” change, and this is a good thing. Our goal should be to allow women to go topless in places where men are allowed to be topless. And, of course, even places where men are not allowed to be topless, women need to be able to feed their babies without getting kicked out, told to cover up, or made to sit in a closet/designated “feeding area”.

@DoNotKnow so do you suppose that if you saw topless women as a matter of course, the sight of breasts would no longer cause automatic arousal?

So many cultures don’t require the women to cover up. It doesn’t even cross their minds. The whole village has women naked from the waist up (men too.) If it were some sort of “instinct,” I guess all the boys, from the age of 13 up would be walking around with hard ons all the time. They don’t, though.

@Dutchess_III: ”@DoNotKnow so do you suppose that if you saw topless women as a matter of course, the sight of breasts would no longer cause automatic arousal?”

On one level, I’m saying that it doesn’t matter. My sexual arousal doesn’t come into play when we are talking about rights. But to be honest, I don’t think seeing topless women all the time would minimize my arousal. As I’ve mentioned in previous threads, my wife is a lactation consultant, and had been a volunteer breastfeeding counselor and leader of La Leche League for 10 years. The amount of breasts that I have been surrounded by in a non-sexual context is abundant. But that doesn’t mean that within a sexual context, I don’t find breasts sexually arousing. This is all irrelevant, however.

I don’t think it’s irrelevant. We find a lot of things arousing within a sexual context that we don’t always find arousing outside of it. If you went out side and saw a young, in-shape woman mowing the lawn, and she was topless, would you be aroused, even though mowing the yard is not within a sexual context?

^ Ok, I’ll entertain this for some reason. If I saw a “young, in-shape woman mowing he lawn”, she could be wearing a sweatshirt and jeans – something in my biology would get buzzing. Of course, topless might be of particular interest to me. But if she was hot (temperature) and wanted to do that, I’m not sure what I have to do with this at all.

The very first time I realized that life was going to be different for me as a female is when I was six, taking a hike with my family (sister, mom, dad, male cousin) on an extremely hot summer day. Seven-year-old cousin removes his shirt because he’s dripping in sweat and hot, I went to do the same thing and was told “No, you can’t do that.” When I got infuriated and asked why, I was told “Because you’re a girl”. Even then, at six, I argued because I knew it didn’t make sense and wasn’t fair. I was drenched in sweat and didn’t talk to my parents for hours because of it.

As for an actual answer to the question? It does makes you sexist if you have a double-standard. If men can go topless in public and you have no problem with it, the same should apply to women. As for breasts being seen as sexual objects? Well… So what if they are? It’s not their purpose, in any way, but it can’t be denied that they’ve come to be viewed sexually in the West. However, again: Who cares? That can’t actually be used as an argument to keep them covered. Men’s chests are also seen as sexual objects, but that doesn’t keep men in their shirts all the time.

The simple truth is that there is no difference between shirtless men and shirtless women.

I’m with @DoNotKnow in the “so what if they’re arousing?” camp. Really, so the fuck what? Are we to assume that aroused persons are berserk-out-of-control demons that will rampage about ravaging exposed breasts? I am not the keeper of their consciences.
And actually, like I said before, for the majority of us, we are literally not arousers. We would just like to be comfy and have the same rights of convenience-without-harassment.

I think men should be required to go pantless so that we know when they’re aroused and we can run away!

@Dutchess_III As long as they have a towel to sit on.

@Dutchess_III – not all women run away. That says a lot about you.

I think you took it a leetle too seriously @elbanditoroso.

I had to laugh at myself at one point watching the video. Most of the women were so comfortable going topless it wasn’t sexual at all. There were a couple that were flaunting it and parading around, and that was very sexual, because they were showing they had some attitude. But about part way through they were looking over a woman’s shoulder as she held a book. And I was checking out the book. And they I had to slap myself and say dude, boobies. It’s been forbidden fruit for so long. I think if we all relaxed it wouldn’t be sexist at all. (We’ll see if this bites me in the ass)

I agree @Adirondackwannabe. However, that won’t mean that all men will NEVER find them sexual under certain circumstances. Under certain circumstances a man will find every inch of a woman’s body sexy.

@Dutchess_III Well, isn’t it a mutual respect thing. If we both want to go sexual okay, but I shouldn’t take it there by myself. Or she shouldn’t take it there if I’m not ready. (Although how many times does that happen~)

LOL!

I think the women have a point. To a degree, the way we look at a woman’s body is socially determined. As was pointed out above, in so called primitive societies, everyone is topless. At one time people got worked up about exposed ankles. The only aspect of a woman’s body that was found to be universally attractive is the hip to waist ratio.

It just seems to me that equal right to toplessness is not something to get worked up about. I personally think that clothing was a great invention and would prefer to see more of it, not less. If you are interested in woman’s rights then work on getting equal pay and equal job opportunities and access to reproductive care.

If you are interested in woman’s rights then work on getting equal pay and equal job opportunities and access to reproductive care.

That coming from a privileged male, who is legally allowed to go topless, without fear of ridicule, a fine, or being publicly shamed is kind of the point that a lot of people have already tried to make in this thread. You, being the privileged person in this scenario, don’t get to tell women – who are the ones with less rights in this case – what they should or shouldn’t be worrying about in terms of equality. Equality means just that – not partial, not half-assed. Every battle for equality is just that: a battle. You may not see this as an important one, but I assure you, it matters just as much as equal pay or reproductive care. You are not the one who doesn’t have the right to feel comfortable in their skin, who can’t feed their kid in public, or who can’t take their shirt off outside in sweltering heat. Insignificant or trivial to you, maybe, but again: you’re not the one suffering because of it.

90% of the time when I see a man with his shirt off in sweltering heat, I feel like he’d look better if he put the shirt back on. :)

That doesn’t make you sexist, it just makes them exhibitionists. It sounds like they’re just looking for an excuse to get their gear off in public, and came up with a political excuse to forestall any attempt to get them to show some modesty.

@LostInParadise: “It just seems to me that equal right to toplessness is not something to get worked up about. I personally think that clothing was a great invention and would prefer to see more of it, not less. If you are interested in woman’s rights then work on getting equal pay and equal job opportunities and access to reproductive care.”

There are number of things wrong with this paragraph.

1. You, as a member of a group who already enjoys a right, is not moved by the fact that others do not enjoy this right. You have the right, yet in a way you wish you didn’t.

This was a fairly common thing we heard years ago whenever the issue of same-sex marriage came up. “I don’t know why same-sex couple would even want to be married. Most marriages end up in divorce. And the pressure to tie the knot can end up ruining an otherwise committed relationship. Same-sex couples have the benefit of not even having to entertain the option.”

The fact that you find clothes a good invention and you would prefer to see more clothing on everyone is irrelevant. The fact that you can do something that half the population can’t is reason enough for anyone interested in fairness to either:

a) Fight for the rights of women to enjoy the same right of men to go topless.

or

b) Fight for more strict clothing laws that make the restrictions on men’s ability to go topless precisely as restrictive as for women.

2. You appear to be making a case that working towards equality needs to take a specific form. As a man, you have decided that the most important issues that women should be vigilant about should be equal pay, equal work, and access to reproductive care.

Again, because you are not moved by the issue of fairness regarding “decency” laws and normalizing the exposure of the female body, you dismiss this as not being important enough to worry about. This is also a common glitch in thought that has prohibited progress. Do you think that every time people were fighting for a right or looking to affect change, those who already enjoyed those rights saw the fight as a valid one? “We already give blacks their own water fountains to drink from. I can’t see why they are all worked up. If they want to work on equal rights, why don’t they….”.

3. Related to #2 above, implicit in your argument is an assumption that striving towards equality and fairness is one in which you must choose one or two issues. Do you not think it’s possible for women to fight for equal pay/work, actively support reproductive freedom, and still work towards freeing the nipple? Do you think it’s also possible that for some women, freeing the nipple is what moves them? Fighting this fight is not mutually exclusive with fighting other fights. And for many people, they might see these two as inextricably linked.

I consider you to be a very thoughtful and insightful person. This topic seems to be one of those areas that might be good for you to explore further. I don’t think calling you “sexist” serves any purpose. But in this case, the practice of checking one’s privilege may be useful for looking at the issue from another perspective.

I made it through all the flax and redacted to get here…....what part of your OP do you think makes you sexist? I read nothing in there that would indicate it to me.

I think clothing is a good invention too. It can enhances the better details of our bodies, will obscuring the less attractive aspects. Wish people would use that more.

@Dutchess_III: I agree. I think 99% of people look better with clothes on (myself included).

Yeah, maybe ½ of 1% of the people could get away with walking around naked and still be hot. Although, I don’t find exposed penises attractive.