Support NeoGAF

[Prophet Steve]

I was obviously referring to the portions of our bodies that humans consider sexual in nature. I don't know anyone who considers acne sexual.

Yes, there are many changes. I'm referring to the most noticeable changes (specifically the ones most likened to sexuality). So can we please stop pretending that when Jennifer came back from summer break that the first thing we noticed was the hair on her legs?

I think she is talking about facial hair. Which is definitely one of more noticeable changes. Your statement is just very vague and doesn't make a lot of sense.

"Generally cover up" while there are very few parts that need to be covered up. Most noticeable changes, but only of those in a sexual nature. But we'll basically only consider butts, genitalia and breasts those. Although I don't think butts are really the most noticeable of changes, so let's exclude that also.

We are not covering them up because they have prominent development, but because of that little rule that you added, because you consider them sexual.

 

[wildfire]

Yes preventing her from slapping is also a more plausible reason to protect is client than "oh no boobies. Either way, all of these reasons are more likely than the guard being afraid of breasts.

Let's not be so hasty to dismiss the potential dangers. They could suffocate you if you aren't careful

Well we generally cover up the body parts that undergo the most obvious and significant changes during sexual development/puberty.

True that it's generally. I think it would be ridiculous if men were required to wear scarves at all times because of our pronounced Adam's apple.

 

[MIMIC]

No we don't. The most obvious change is the shape and size of the breast, and swimsuits and cleavage are permitted and socially acceptable. The only part that is socially unacceptable to not cover are the nipples, and those certainly don't change much.

Unacceptable where? There isn't a school in America where a girl's mere covering of her nipples would be considered acceptable.

I think she is talking about facial hair. Which is definitely one of more noticeable changes.

There's also a significant change in height, yet we don't wear sheets once we sprout 5 inches over the summer. You are ignoring the physical changes that are also likened to sexuality.

We are not covering them up because they have prominent development, but because of that little rule that you added, because you consider them sexual.

It's both (at least that's my belief)

 

[Prophet Steve]

Unacceptable where? There isn't a school in America where a girl's mere covering of her nipples would be considered acceptable.



There's also a significant change in height, yet we don't wear sheets once we sprout 5 inches over the summer. You are ignoring the physical changes that are also likened to sexuality.



It's both.

In that case, what parts likened to sexuality don't we cover up that don't significantly change during puberty?

 

[Ayumi]

Men don't have tits

I'm all for topless women, but tits are seen as private parts, ask a woman to take her to off and she will say no.

It's just how it is, just accept it.

Quoting this as an agreement. If the rules suddenly changed, I wouldn't for the life of me post my nude boobs, because they're still private to me and they always will be.

 

[liliththepale]

Unacceptable where? There isn't a school in America where a girl's mere covering of her nipples would be considered acceptable.

Nor a school where guys can go shirtless. Next strawman, please.

 

[Izuna]

Nor a school where guys can go shirtless. Next strawman, please.

Not really true though. If they take swimming classes the guys can go with just trunks.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Not really true though. If they take swimming classes the guys can go with just trunks.

And covering close to only the nipples is pretty acceptable then too.

 

[Prototype]

Not really true though. If they take swimming classes the guys can go with just trunks.

But that's swimming class, which is an exception.

Clearly they were talking about the normal school day, not extra curricular activities, especially ones that require you to get into water.

 

[shinobi602]

I'd be cool with women walking around with their breasts hanging out.

 

[Prototype]

I'd be cool with women walking around with their breasts hanging out.

This would go for all women, not just "attractive" ones, just like all guys can do it, regardless of body type.

 

[Izuna]

But that's swimming class, which is an exception.

Clearly they were talking about the normal school day, not extra curricular activities, especially ones that require you to get into water.

Why is there a difference and exception all of a sudden?

In my class, if a guy got drenched with water in school he could take his top off. A girl would go somewhere private.

 

[MIMIC]

In that case, what parts likened to sexuality don't we cover up that don't significantly change during puberty?

I don't understand the question. Everything is generally covered up.

Nor a school where guys can go shirtless. Next strawman, please.

Shirts vs. skins in gym class?

But that's swimming class, which is an exception.

The exception demonstrates the fact that boys aren't covered up in school for the same reason girls are. This is more along the lines of "appropriateness", rather than "social acceptability". And because breasts undergo obvious and significant development during puberty (and are likened to sexuality), they're always covered up in school....while there is an exception for boys.

 

[KnockOneOff]

hi op i made image you can use on the facebook

no need to thank me

Ah yes I agree with this poster, I propose this becomes the normal in 2015

#endsexism

 

[Syriel]

Why is there a difference and exception all of a sudden?

In my class, if a guy got drenched with water in school he could take his top off. A girl would go somewhere private.

If you're in the US, it would be the woman's choice.

If a college let a man take his shirt off in class for any reason, but denied a woman the same opportunity, they would be on the losing end of a lawsuit.

 

[Izuna]

If you're in the US, it would be the woman's choice.

If a college let a man take his shirt off in class for any reason, but denied a woman the same opportunity, they would be on the losing end of a lawsuit.

What the fuck? Are we talking about laws or society's opinion or what would realistically happen?

And I was also talking about primary school.

 

[Prophet Steve]

I don't understand the question. Everything is generally covered up.



Shirts vs. skins in gym class?



The exception demonstrates the fact that boys aren't covered up in school for the same reason girls are. This is more along the lines of "appropriateness", rather than "social acceptability". And because breasts undergo obvious and significant development during puberty (and are likened to sexuality), they're always covered up in school....while there is an exception for boys.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=150004595&postcount=494

Well, what body parts would you think I mean?

So, you say generally the body parts that we cover up have the most significant and obvious changes during puberty.

That simply isn't true. Considering facial hair, mens chests, whatever else.

Then you say you are talking about those of a sexual nature.

Okay, but what body parts of a sexual nature don't undergo significant changes? Because if your point was that it is because they undergo significant changes, what body parts don't we cover up then because they don't change significantly yet are still sexual?

Likely none, which means it wasn't much of a point and we likely just cover them up because they are sexual, not because they happen to be prominent changes.

Also, with the swimming it is appropriate for women to cover only their nipples and it is normal to show a lot of breast, so that is why that example isn't good.

 

[Valhelm]

Progress? Looks like the cover of a romance novel. Wouldn't say it is anything new.

But romance novels have always been an explicitly female genre, written mostly by and almost entirely for women. Male sexualization is not new, but what's new is the sexualization of men in mainstream, mixed-gender society. We're starting to see increasingly more media being advertised with men's bodies, which I think is a pretty recent change.

 

[RyanDG]

Also, with the swimming it is appropriate for women to cover only their nipples and it is normal to show a lot of breast, so that is why that example isn't good.

Maybe it's just because where I'm from, but in general, most women's swimsuits are a lot more modest than you are describing here. It's not like bikinis are basically taped bits of cloth covering only the nipple. Furthermore, I wouldn't even say that it's 'socially acceptable'. Pretty much every beach that I've been too, there's always a limit to what a swimsuit can allow to show before it starts to get the occasional awkward glance. Yes, it's 'allowed', but I wouldn't call it outright socially acceptable.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Maybe it's just because where I'm from, but in general, most women's swimsuits are a lot more modest than you are describing here. It's not like bikinis are basically taped bits of cloth covering only the nipple. Furthermore, I wouldn't even say that it's 'socially acceptable'. Pretty much every beach that I've been too, there's always a limit to what a swimsuit can allow to show before it starts to get the occasional awkward glance. Yes, it's 'allowed', but I wouldn't call it outright socially acceptable.

This is my experience as well. String bikinis aren't exactly the norm.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Maybe it's just because where I'm from, but in general, most women's swimsuits are a lot more modest than you are describing here. It's not like bikinis are basically taped bits of cloth covering only the nipple. Furthermore, I wouldn't even say that it's 'socially acceptable'. Pretty much every beach that I've been too, there's always a limit to what a swimsuit can allow to show before it starts to get the occasional awkward glance. Yes, it's 'allowed', but I wouldn't call it outright socially acceptable.

Well, no, they are not clothed with tiny nipple hats, but it isn't like breasts are very covered either. Point is that it acceptable for women to show part of their breasts which have the more significant development than the nipples. Probably about as or even more acceptable than it is for men to be shirtless.

And what the guy is arguing is that we keep the body parts covered that have the most development, which isn't true.

 

[liliththepale]

These sports/swimming/gym examples are all bad. The primary function of a sports bra/swimsuit is to keep the breasts from moving around too much. That timid people also use them for modesty is incidental to the primary function.

 

[Izuna]

These sports/swimming/gym examples are all bad. The primary function of a sports bra/swimsuit is to keep the breasts from moving around too much. That timid people also use them for modesty is incidental to the primary function.

I brought up swimming. I was talking about primary school, before the girls even have breasts. But I don't even get this point. You can say you think women should go bare, but if you are implying that people don't think nipples are private that's incredibly silly.

 

[liliththepale]

I brought up swimming. I was talking about primary school, before the girls have breasts. But I don't even get this point. You can say you think women should go bare, but if you are implying that people don't think nipples are private that's incredibly silly.

I'm implying that women with top-covering swimsuits are doing so for function, not form. Anything else is because prudes.

 

[Seanjohn]

some men have breasts

True story! Some men need The Bro

 

[Cream]

This would go for all women, not just "attractive" ones, just like all guys can do it, regardless of body type.

Okay, so? All he said was that he would be okay with woman having their breasts hanging out.

If we can handle ugly fat shirtless men, we can handle ugly fat shirtless women.

 

[Izuna]

I'm implying that women with top-covering swimsuits are doing so for function, not form. Anything else is because prudes.

Okay I am having a really hard time following this discussion. It seems someone will set an example, someone will argue it, then someone else will use their argument and call them out on a completely different thing.

They also do so for function, but of course not small children. Where in schools it is acceptable for boys to be topless and not for females.

But really, we know in the US they can if they want or whatever. If a flat chested girl didn't cover her tits while swimming she will be told off. That's the way things are and it is because female nipples are private in western society.

 

[googleplex]

Men don't have tits

I'm all for topless women, but tits are seen as private parts, ask a woman to take her to off and she will say no.

It's just how it is, just accept it.

This is biologically false. Both Men and woman have breast but women tend to have larger(fuller) breast.

Using your logic, its ok for a flat chested woman to go topless, but not ok for a Dude with Man Boobs to go topless.

 

[googleplex]

And in some societies where everyone is naked all day and every day, nothing is considered private enough to cover up. That's the difference between our society and theirs: we drew the line somewhere while they didn't.

So unless your argument is that NOTHING should be covered up, moving the line to just exclude breasts is seemingly just as arbitrary.

There was once a line in the sand about woman voting. Owning another human being, and race mixing. Those lines no longer exist.

Just because a line is there doesn't mean it should be there.

 

[MIMIC]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=150004595&postcount=494

Well, what body parts would you think I mean?

So, you say generally the body parts that we cover up have the most significant and obvious changes during puberty.

That simply isn't true. Considering facial hair, mens chests, whatever else.

Then you say you are talking about those of a sexual nature.

Okay, but what body parts of a sexual nature don't undergo significant changes? Because if your point was that it is because they undergo significant changes, what body parts don't we cover up then because they don't change significantly yet are still sexual?

Likely none, which means it wasn't much of a point and we likely just cover them up because they are sexual, not because they happen to be prominent changes.

The reason I brought up puberty was because people suggested that breasts shouldn't be covered up because they aren't "sexual organs". Well, the thing links breasts with sexual organs are that they all undergo significant developmental changes during puberty.

But regardless, yes....they're all sexual. And our sexual parts are synonymous with being our private parts, and our private parts are usually covered up.

Also, with the swimming it is appropriate for women to cover only their nipples and it is normal to show a lot of breast, so that is why that example isn't good.

We were talking about school. A middle school girl isn't going to be "showing a lot of her breast", even while in swim class.

There was once a line in the sand about woman voting. Owning another human being, and race mixing. Those lines no longer exist.

Just because a line is there doesn't mean it should be there.

So let's remove the line and be naked?

 

[Syriel]

What the fuck? Are we talking about laws or society's opinion or what would realistically happen?

And I was also talking about primary school.

Laws dictate what would happen. And if the law isn't followed, it usually means someone ends up losing a lawsuit.

But realistically? Colleges have people go topless every so often. Some colleges have naked runs. Colleges are the least likely place to find prudish attitudes.

You edited the primary school bit into your reply, but that's something of a red herring. Children don't have agency to the extent that adults do. Many "rights" can be curtailed for underage students, completely legally.

I brought up swimming. I was talking about primary school, before the girls even have breasts. But I don't even get this point. You can say you think women should go bare, but if you are implying that people don't think nipples are private that's incredibly silly.

If you want to keep focusing on young kids, look at parents. If young kids are out at a restaurant and spill something on their shirt, parents are likely to change their shirts right then and there. Boy or girl. It's not like it's something anyone makes a big deal about.

Ultimately, in the end it should always be the choice of the person in question. If you're talking about kids, then parents can overrule, but adults don't need to be told how to dress.

 

[Izuna]

This is biologically false. Both Men and woman have breast but women tend to have larger(fuller) breast.

"Tend to" lol. You mean oestrogen?

Also this is what I mean. These parallels that if an acceptable A has similarity to B, and C isn't acceptable because it isn't A, then B must be acceptable too.

Why don't we just point out every single non-equal thing between men and women and call it hypocrisy? Bare in mind there is very little that I would personally argue against being made equal, but this is one thing that not just trying to change something set in stone and a harmless culture of civilisation, but it also doesn't benefit women very much at all if everyone stopped caring about tits.

Laws dictate what would happen. And if the law isn't followed, it usually means someone ends up losing a lawsuit.

But realistically? Colleges have people go topless every so often. Some colleges have naked runs. Colleges are the least likely place to find prudish attitudes.

You edited the primary school bit into your reply, but that's something of a red herring. Children don't have agency to the extent that adults do. Many "rights" can be curtailed for underage students, completely legally.


If you want to keep focusing on young kids, look at parents. If young kids are out at a restaurant and spill something on their shirt, parents are likely to change their shirts right then and there. Boy or girl. It's not like it's something anyone makes a big deal about.

Ultimately, in the end it should always be the choice of the person in question. If you're talking about kids, then parents can overrule, but adults don't need to be told how to dress.

Okay so you are talking about laws. I wasn't. Laws aren't way people find female nipples private. I mean, if laws had the ability to change people's minds then shouldn't no on in the US care already?

Yeah initially I was talking about primary school because I was speaking from memory. I dunno, maybe in the US the girl that forgot her swimsuit would have been able to borrow boy's trunks. I highly doubt her parents would approve though. Anyway I ONLY brought it up because someone said it is never acceptable for a boy to be topless in school. So I was bringing up from memory that that was bullshit.

Um I dunno, is this a thing that happens in the US? For babies sure, but after a certain age girls are never allowed to be topless. In according to this thread, if they did, they would get in trouble or told off or, if they are older, their peers would look if they so wished. That it should be the choice of the person isn't really true. There are some things, like girls walking about with their tits out, that people would be pretty damn vocal about.

Here's a test (and I know I am really trying to force this conversation one way) -- walk past a line of kids without your top on a summer day (imagine doing this as male/female). Because, ultimately, that is pretty much what OP did by putting this image on Facebook. So should the kids and their guardians not give a shit, or should they?

We are talking about doing this in public. Tits are in fact shown after certain hours on television and that is because it is to protect children. Perhaps what you really want to say is that we should stop teaching children to think nipples are private. And we would do so by pretty much being nudists.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Well, no, they are not clothed with tiny nipple hats, but it isn't like breasts are very covered either. Point is that it acceptable for women to show part of their breasts which have the more significant development than the nipples. Probably about as or even more acceptable than it is for men to be shirtless.

And what the guy is arguing is that we keep the body parts covered that have the most development, which isn't true.

Yup. This.

And I was also talking about primary school.

Eh? Girls in primary schools don't even have breasts yet.

Bare in mind there is very little that I would personally argue against being made equal, but this is one thing that not just trying to change something set in stone and a harmless culture of civilisation, but it also doesn't benefit women very much at all if everyone stopped caring about tits.

Once again, telling women what benefits them and how they should feel. Sigh...

 

[Izuna]

Eh? Girls in primary schools don't even have breasts yet.


Once again, telling women what benefits them and how they should feel. Sigh...

1. Uhhhhhhhhhh look at what I am replying to. Otherwise there will never be any way to ever forward this discussion. I replied because my point that boys can be topless in swimming class and not girls was rebuked because girls need to use swimsuits for comfort reasons. So I was saying EXACTLY what you just said.

And to clarity if you aren't bothered to read: it is the nipples and not the breasts that are considered private. It seems you agree with this right?

2. Okay. How did I tell women how they should feel?

You know what, list all of the benefits women would have if people didn't care about their tits just like how they view men's. Since you're the expert being the girl (I assume), even though this isn't what this topic is about, enlighten me.

Things I have already mentioned:-
- When it is hot they could remove their shirt etc.
- When their shirt gets stained they can change without going somewhere private.

 

[Yrael]

I absolutly LOVE this example because .... the "androgynous male model" is RIGHT NOW a fully transitioned trans woman.

So RIGHT NOW those previously ok nipples are now nsfw since they NOW belong to a woman ?
Or those nipples does not have the necessary amount of estrogen influence than she has right now ?

Oh wow, I had no idea. Great for her!

Yeah, it's a great example to show the silliness and arbitrary nature of the double standard.

 

[Izuna]

Oh wow, I had no idea. Great for her!

Yeah, it's a great example to show the silliness and arbitrary nature of the double standard.

When does bread become toast?

It is interesting though. Flat chest girls can't show their nipples and men with actual boobs can't either for the same reason. Well it still falls under common sense, hardly double standard though.

When Bailey Jay does it and gets in trouble "but I'm a guy" doesn't change anything. So it's not because of sexism we don't teach girls it's okay to show their nipples.

 

[Simply Sarah]

When does bread become toast?

It is interesting though. Flat chest girls can't show their nipples and men with actual boobs can't either for the same reason. Well it still falls under common sense, hardly double standard though.

When Bailey Jay does it and gets in trouble "but I'm a guy" doesn't change anything. So it's not because of sexism we don't teach girls it's okay to show their nipples.

What what and what? I have no idea what you're talking about. Additionally, Bailey Jay most certainly is not a guy.

 

[Izuna]

What what and what? I have no idea what you're talking about. Additionally, Bailey Jay most certainly is not a guy.

I didn't call her a guy, him or anything.

Regardless, her boobs don't become indecent the second she has a sex change. It's the moment they become female nipples. So yeah, oestrogens and female sexuality.

It's not about it being "okay" so long as the same boobs belong to a male or female. It's that they are boobs including if the person is female, even without big breasts it's still considered private. I am saying things how they are.

They are possibly like that because it's considered sexual, there is no other reason for it. By men and women, female breasts and especially their nipples are considered sexual around the time puberty takes place, which is the point another poster was making.

And I am disagreeing calling it double standard because that isn't what that term means. Double standard would be if men treated good looking breasts as acceptable and, I guess unattractive ones as being public indecency.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I didn't call her a guy, him or anything.

Regardless, her boobs don't become indecent the second she has a sex change. It's the moment they become female nipples.

What the fuck am I even reading? There's nothing indecent about nipples, period.

 

[Izuna]

What the fuck am I even reading? There's nothing indecent about nipples, period.

Okay, I'll rephrase to be extra clear.

When a female walks down a public road and shows her nipples, it is considered indecency by general society, or more specifically, the people who would be complaining if they did complain. They aren't complaining because it hurts their eyes or gives them painful boners, but because they understand it to be indecent. It's how they are brought up. You may not think so, but it's how things actually are, obviously, which is why this thread is created.

I am not ever saying if I think they should be allowed to or not, or addressing my personal opinion, but it is not sexism that people consider them to be, nor is it sexism for facebook to do the same.

Unless you want to riot against the idea that female nipples on GAF must be behind a NSFW link.

Nor a school where guys can go shirtless. Next strawman, please.

This is what I replied to and when I brought up swimming. So please stop taking a single line out of context.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I would beat the ever-loving shit out of the man, but I would also guard my daughter's modesty so men aren't staring at her.

Breasts have been a symbol of female beauty for as long as people have made statues and pictures of women.

Also, men aren't civilized. They want sex. I may be wrong on a lot of things, but I know this.

Wait, men aren't civilized because they want sex?

I don't think many people here agree with this sentiment. It is perfectly natural for men to be generally the hornier sex due to their physiology. That shouldn't be shamed either. That being said, all people need to be aware of others. If the attention is unwanted or illegal on the receiving end, those same men (and people in general) can and must restrain themselves or else face the consequences of not doing so. The expectation of restraint shouldn't be from the victimized person.

 

[Izuna]

Wait, men aren't civilized because they want sex?

I don't think many people here agree with this sentiment. It is perfectly natural for men to be generally the hornier sex due to their physiology. That shouldn't be shamed either. That being said, all people need to be aware of others. If the attention is unwanted or illegal on the receiving end, those same men (and people in general) can and must restrain themselves or else face the consequences of not doing so. The expectation of restraint shouldn't be from the victimized person.

Not saying we all need to be Victorian on this matter, but there is very little argument to allow "public indecency", which is what it is called in the UK.

I am 100% certain that if you put anyone on an island or big event where people knew minors couldn't enter, no one would tell girls off for being topless by choice.

 

[Derwind]

Men in some cases lactate and this hints at an evolutionary trait that the male ancestors to homo sapiens once shared the rearing of their young.

Also I'm uncomfortable by topless people in general.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

I'm a gay guy and I'm for this. Looking at women breasts does nothing to me.

Oops I said I won't be coming into this thread again, I guess I failed.

Same here. I'm gay and think that if men are allowed to be topless, women should be as well. I don't see myself lusting, assaulting or having an erection for every topless man I see so I don't see why straight men can't control themselves.

Also, I doubt people are going to suddenly take the subways with their breasts hanging out, just like how it's rare to see topless man on public transports.

 

[Izuna]

Same here. I'm gay and think that if men are allowed to be topless, women should be as well. I don't see myself lusting, assaulting or having an erection for every topless man I see so I don't see why straight men can't control themselves.

Also, I doubt people are going to suddenly take the subways with their breasts hanging out, just like how it's rare to see topless man on public transports.

I don't think it is the same. We know that people can grow up where bare female breasts are just "meh" or normal, but that hasn't happened.

As a gay guy, bare chested men was normal for you growing up, which is why it's so normal to you. I don't think it really has too much to do with whether or not it actually is sexually attractive to men. I doubt they pop boners seeing irl nipples, just that the extra attention is because they're not used to seeing it.

Similarly I guess in some European countries no one gives a shit a girl is topless or has sex in a train station. Or at the very least less of a shit doing so. Most people would just look away if it were a stranger, but they wouldn't think it's necessary.

I do know that in the UK it would be indecent as fuck to do so however.

 

[Oersted]

I think most women would be for it being the same situation as with men. Not that women constantly walk topless all the time.

Even when there isn't much of a problem with men being topless in public, it isn't something I routinely come across.

Yeah, this is the weird thing about the thread. It is not about woman being topless 24/7. Its about fashion. Rihanna recently has worn such a dress. Its about sunbathing. Its about taking a public shower when its too hot, or in short, when it makes sense. Like you know, men.

snip

Let me put it this way, your "arguments" have been the best argument for it.

 

[Joni]

This response and all like it:

Is pretty clear you haven't read thru the thread as I have addressed this. Nice drive by.

It's also not really the point of the conversation.

Thanks for adding nothing to the debate/conversation.

It is quite important to the conversation. It shows you are willing to abide by some site's standards and not by others. It means it is hypocritical from tte start. I found your adressal of it insufficient to dispell that notion. NeoGAF and Facebook both are allowed to define their standards, especially taking into account where both would be opened. The point you want to make is also flawed because there are numerous places where it is allowed to walk around topless. It isn't allowed to show that on Facebook or NeoGAF with you only breaking that rule on one.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I am not ever saying if I think they should be allowed to or not, or addressing my personal opinion, but it is not sexism that people consider them to be, nor is it sexism for facebook to do the same.

Unless you want to riot against the idea that female nipples on GAF must be behind a NSFW link.

I disagree. It's a quite obvious instance of sexism. Women are restricted from something men are able to do because...that's just the popular opinion, or that's the tradition. These are not adequate justification.

The reason we have a NSFW disclaimer on the board is not because the users of this site consider female nipples indecent, but because the rampant sexism of our society could result in causing offense at our workplaces if we were to view such material there unexpectedly.

 

[Raistlin]

The reason we have a NSFW disclaimer on the board is not because the users of this site consider female nipples indecent, but because the rampant sexism of our society could result in causing offense at our workplaces if we were to view such material there unexpectedly.

While I'm not commenting on Facebook's rationale, I don't think citing NSFW as an example of sexism is at all cogent.

For one NSFW is used for numerous things, including gore. It is not inherently tied to nudity of any type. Second, whether a thread is marked as NSFW or not ... I think most employers would look down upon employees staring at pics of topless dudes all day. So even when talking about 'nudity', it seems to generally apply to either sex.

While maybe it was true long ago, the avoidance of nudity in most of the business world has less to do with sexism, or even a puritanical morality, and more to do with litigation. The thing about sexual harassment is it is purely based on the eyes of the beholder. Few things are inherently harassing until the person being harassed argues it is. Other than for obvious cases, it is ambiguous by nature. For that reason a broad range of activities, statements, and content are outright banned in order to prevent the potential of someone being harassed. In most instances a company doesn't give two shits about nudity, male or female, for any other reason beyond the potential of it costing them money and reputation.

 

[poppabk]

I disagree. It's a quite obvious instance of sexism. Women are restricted from something men are able to do because...that's just the popular opinion, or that's the tradition. These are not adequate justification.

There are a million of these things though. I mean if it was socially acceptable for men to wear bras, maybe we would could do away with men being topless.