How come women can show cleavage but I can't show part of my testicles?

Uh, that’s immoral, It’s sounds similar to the question Wrestle asked, and anyway, I might get flagged but uh last I looked…. womens breasts don’t have hair

Stop complaining, you get to walk around top-less without funny looks or getting arrested on a hot day!

And thank God for that! Sometimes I love double standards.
A better question is why can you walk around with no shirt but women have to cover their chests. Sometimes I hate double standards.

Well it’s a long Explaination, Necro, your field of expertise is here!!

I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with women walking around topless :)
doit.doit.doit

And I personally have no problem with you flaunting your testicles…....

Well, well, well, (I agree with you windex, depends on the woman though) it is interesting, since time, well it depends on what aspect of history and myth you look at, you can go with Darwin’s theory, or with the biblical theory.

Well, I don’t think women want to see men’s testicles like men want to see women’s breasts. Correct me if I’m wrong, hetero ladies.

That is very true! It just doesn’t have that appeal…....a bit like builder’s crack really isn’t terribly attractive….

However, expose some nicely defined abs and/or firm, strong legs…....that’s a different story!

@Darknymph I’ve never seen one, but I think they do :)

(sorry had to say it)

What?! Seen one what? I’m sorry I’m busy sprucing myself up so Wrestle, Necro and me can plop on the couch and watch RAW.

breasts are not sexual organs

Men consider them to be, also don’t women get turned on when touch there as well, I mean come on.

Oh, get serious.

What do you mean? I’m showing my scrotal clevage right now.

Ever heard of Euro shorts?

Right I don’t think we want to know that, since especially I’m eating right now.

what’s wrong necro too much for you (joking)

I’ve been informed that women in Rochester NY may sunbathe topless or swim topless, with impunity. The case was about the so-called “Top-Free 7,” and here is one of the court rulings that led to women having that right in Rochester NY.

August 31, 2008, 2:22 PM EDT

Please don’t.

don’t what, that’s a cute little avatar.

Breasts = bags of fat.
Testicles = ugly little sacks of reproductive goodies.
Breasts = Not necessary for human reproduction.
Testicles = absolutely necessary for human reproduction.
Breasts = ultimately scientifically unimportant.
Testicles = very scientifically important.

Breasts… are necessary….

Babies have to eat!

@delirium: Not really… hence why women can have double mastectomies and still reproduce.

Now days, no… but before the domestication of animals they were wholly necessary.
(And as long as you have external source of spermies [like milk] now, testicles aren’t necessary.)

I’m just talking about humans though… since that’s what I know… lol :)

@poof exactly. breasts are not reproductive organs. this is a standard argument in right-to-topless cases.

You can’t compare breasts to testicles in a battle of “importantness”. You may compare testicles to ovaries, and breasts to men’s undeveloped, breastless chests—in which case the former would be tied and the latter would obviously be won by breasts.

In the same way you can’t compare women showing their breasts to men showing their testicles. That’s like saying “If men can walk around with no shirt on, why can’t I walk around with my vagina exposed?” Where’s the flow of loigic in that?

And @delirium has a point, we would never have survived as a species without breasts, no one would be here today.

I agree with delirium.

Thank you Delirium.

I believe we men should be able to show a part of ourselves as well. Women get away with sh*t all of the time so, why can’t we? A woman can walk or go anywhere showing cleavage and it’s fine but can you all imagine if we men showed a part of our penis or testicles? We’d get arrested and buried under the jail cell.