Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#122 - scant
Reply +13
(04/28/2013) [-]
If a male celebrity accidentally had his john flopping out while rescuing two people from drowning, it would have received the exact same type of coverage.
That's not sexism, that's just ****** journalism by asshole journalists with scummy photographers.
#128 to #122 - theaceofthespade
Reply +1
(04/28/2013) [-]
I'm not so sure that's the case. For one, it's a little bit more involved to get your dick to flop out while doing something because of the nature of male bathing suits. And while I do not know for sure, I think that there would be more of a "selfless hero" angle. Celebrity penis' are simply not as "sought after" as breasts.
#132 to #128 - thirdjess ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
The magazine is marketed for women. Men would be sold as 'selfless hero's' because that's what women are after. This time around, it's just a little bit of gossip. I find it funny that the feminots - the ones that eat this **** up - are the ones getting upset by it.
#136 to #132 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
I agree, to be sure; however, women are equally capable of being sexist against women. Just because it's sexist against women doesn't mean it's a man being rotten.

Consider this though. That photographer was most likely hoping for a "nip-slip" in the first place. When was the last time that you saw.
#131 to #128 - scant
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Alright then, let me play it from a different angle. I'm guessing, to be honest, that this was some kind of article for a gossip magazine, predominantly bought and read by women. The target demographic is women, and the article is about the exposure of a woman.
I have no idea whether or not that's sexist. But I'm leaning towards the "not sexist" path.
#134 to #131 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Women have just as much capacity to be sexist as men, regardless of who it's directed toward. It reflects a sexist attitude to make that the focus of the article.

If you wanted to be really plain about it, they would not have made a big deal about seeing a man's nipple while he tried to save them.
#142 to #134 - thirdjess ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
That's because male nipples aren't considered a sexual organ. Which isn't sexism, that just ingrained thinking that has been trained into us. Breasts are more than male nipples, they represent motherhood. Which is very personal, if you ask me. Male nipples are about as useful as the skin on the back of your knee.
#144 to #142 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
You know what the word sexist means right? It is any sort of different treatment based upon gender. Whatever reason you want to come up with, whether it's because you feel that they represent motherhood or otherwise, doesn't make it any less sexist of a policy. Just because you were raised with it, or it is prevalent in society, doesn't make it any less sexist.

Furthermore, male and female breasts are not as different as you think. Most of the same tissues are there, men can get breast cancer, men can develop protruding breast, and men can even lactate, all *without* any sort of medical intervention.
#148 to #144 - thirdjess ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Ok let me put it this way. During sex, men fondle, suck on, lick, bite and occasionally **** breasts. Women might lick a nipple here or there but only because it's between your mouth and your dick. In fact most men dislike it when their nipples are bit, licked, sucked on and so forth. Breasts are viewed as a sexual organ because on that level they are.
#162 to #148 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Ignoring all the insane assumptions in your comment (you mite be in for a bit of a surprise when you loose your virginity), you're just saying "they're different because they're girl's and guys like them." The point is, it is different treatment based upon gender - that is what makes it sexist, no matter what justification you want to apply to it, because THAT IS WHAT THE WORD MEANS.

This also doesn't even begin to get into the fact that it is the very taboo of breast that further sexualizes them in our society, and makes them that much more of a big deal. There is certainly a biological predisposition to like breast, as they are one of the indicators that men use to judge fertility. However this rabid obsession we have with them is created largely by the importance we place upon covering them, the same way that seeing a womans ankle was scandalous in victorian times.
#219 to #162 - thirdjess ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
"when you loose your virginity" Now who's making assumptions? Hmm? None of my past boyfriends have liked nipple play. None. Some do, you might be one of them, but most do not. It makes them uncomfortable. I'm not saying 'they're different because guys like them' I'm saying they're much more of an erogenous zone than their male equivalent.

I'm just trying to make you understand that boobs are taboo because they're an erogenous zone where as pectorals are not (GENERALLY ******* SPEAKING). But you're so set in your ways, you refuse to see it from any other perspective.
#221 to #219 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
The bigger picture is what difference does that ultimately make. Ok, they are an erogenous zone - why does that mean they have to be covered up? They aren't unsanitary, there's no real concern there (unlike with exposed genitals). They aren't damaged by being exposed either.

The only reason they are covered runs along the lines of "men can't control themselves." It is to hide something that sexually excites men so that they don't have the "burden" of looking at them. This is the other side of the coin that makes the concept ridiculous. I personally think it's tasteful for a girl to keep her shirt on in public, and even feel sort of uncomfortable when girls start taking their tops off for no reason (I'm the weirdest straight guy ever). But I don't think they should be held to a different standard just because someone thinks my gender can't control themselves on contact with aeriola.

And again, I'm sorry about the virginity thing - it was meant as a joke but came off waaaay to harsh.
#223 to #221 - thirdjess ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
That point is a bit stupid if you ask me, because you yourself said that part of their taboo is the fact that they are covered.
#224 to #223 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
I am not following the contradiction. I'm saying that the logic in both cases is wrong. It is wrong to hide breast simply because "men can't control themselves," and in fact hiding breast further sexualizes them.

So, why do you think that woman's breast, accepting that they are an erogenous zone, should be covered?
#225 to #224 - thirdjess ONLINE
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Because they are, they should be for someones lover not for the whole world. Same as genitals. I know guys who drop trow when they're drunk (god knows why) and I find that disgusting. It's like when you plan to sleep with someone you're saying "I am trusting you with this part of myself." but what's the good in that if everyone and their dog has seen you naked?
#226 to #225 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
But shouldn't it be up to the person to decide who they're for, and not societies or the laws? I happen to agree with you, but that's a personal preference - it doesn't mean it should be forced on anyone else.
#227 to #226 - thirdjess ONLINE
Reply +1
(04/28/2013) [-]
So then they can go flash in not public areas. It's their choice to go nakie, and they can do what they want, but not where I shop and eat thank you. For example I know someone 'doesn't believe in clothes' so he wears a suit to work, wears his work suits to functions, and as soon as he steps in his front door strips. Walks around the house completely naked. It's *really* awkward.
#220 to #219 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Hey I actually am sorry about the virginity thing - that was too mean. I mean that :)

My whole point is that just because they are more erogenous does not change the fact that it is treating women differently.
#176 to #162 - scant
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
I have no idea how you guys got so deeply into this, but honestly, this is not sexism.
If the same publication were to release an article a month later in which an entirely naked man saved a burning orphanage and DIDN'T base the article on his nakedness, THAT would be sexism.
#193 to #176 - theaceofthespade
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
Now that I can agree with you on. Though I am fairly confident about it, I am merely speculating that this is sexism based on the likeliness of them to post something focusing on a man's nipple when he was trying to save someone's life. It's more that it reflects a misogynistic attitude.

Although to be completely fair, I think an article would probably make it the focus if the guy is wearing that same bikini
#138 to #134 - scant
Reply 0
(04/28/2013) [-]
But men's and women's nipples are not the same. It's considered normal for men to be topless in public in certain situations, but not so much for women. Men don't have breasts... Which I guess might be a bit sexist, true.