I think that requiring Women to wear tops, and not requiring men to wear them is Sexual Discrimination. Women should be allowed to go topless anywhere they want! Just ignore me and my camera.
Anyway, I’ve been watching the history channel alot recently, and their sensoring standards have gotten me VERY confused. For example during a show about human reproduction, they showed breasts, and the genitalia (male and female) several times. They were actual people, not drawings, and not bluring. That didn’t really suprise me b/c it was scientifically presented. What did suprise me is that they showed 2 people having sex no bluring, and they even showed penetration (both from the inside and the outside and in full color and also in termal imaging). In another show about the history of sex they showed alot of TnA, even porn websites. They pretty much blurred out images randomly, even showing penetration. On yet another show about pompeii, they showed some art from inside a brothel that showed penetration BUT THEY BLURRED THE PENETRATION OUT! WTF? They can show it for live humans, but they can’t show it for an ancient very unrelistic work of art?
What kind of bet would that be? Does it not cost at least a couple of thousand dollars for the implants? Then probably more to have them removed. As stated, **“What’s the logic there?” ** The answer is none, there was another “issue” besides a bet.
[sup]I’ll bet he wishes they’d blurred his face. There’s logic in that bet.[/sup]
IIRC, the bet was something along the lines of him getting the implants & keeping them for a set amount of time (A month? A year?) Anyway, this guy sort of makes him living off of crazy bets. He also kept the implants after the amount of required time was up. I can’t find a cite, but googling “man with breast implants” gets you some rather interesting results. I read about him in a magazine article, maybe Maxim(?).
Tend to agree with the theories about “sexually functional part” (jawdirk). Let’s also keep in mind that till pretty recently, the weird dichotomy of being able to show all of the breast except the nipple and still be “decent” was not a problem, as anything beyond mild decollatage would have been viewed as pretty indecent (I know, I know: counterexamples going way back of flappers, bikinis, Regency ladies with plunging necklines). Another hard and fast rule that seemed to have held till pretty recently (and that ‘immunized’ even those counterexamples) was that you could show cleavage, but couldn’t show the pendulous underside of the breast – presumably the cleavage could be explained away as sort of a fatty swelling emerging from and contiguous with the upper chest, but the underside of a breast isn’t attached to anything and just looks like a breast.
My other theory is the elegantly-named “nothing hanging out” axiom: Anything that pokes out becomes a focal point of attention/censure. Feminists have long complained of a supposed double standard in movies, whereby an R movie can have full frontal female nudity, but not generally male frontal (lower) nudity (supposedly because of the objectification of . . . blah blah blah). I think it’s just that we get nervous (for whatever cultural/esthetic reasons) seeing ‘stuff’ or organs that is visibly poking, hanging, dangling out – and a woman’s lower frontal nudity doesn’t show much in the way of genitals per se, whereas with a man (and God forbid, an aroused man in some movie love scene) you get far more anatomy than you want. (N.B. that the R movies I’m talking about with “full frontal” female nudity actually almost never show anything beyond the pubic hair – I can’t think of too many theatrically-released movies that show actual female organs in any detail).
Similarly, at the PG level, men’s breasts/nipples don’t stick out, women’s do – so there’s a taboo on the latter. The nipple, being at the center both functionally and literally, may, as the slippery slope of greater and greater cleavage progresses, be viewed as the last redoubt of resistance to showing the full poky/dangly thing.
Until recently, men DID have to wear tops(cover their nipples), else get arrested for indecent exposure. Check out Life Magazine July 18, 1938, for the first photos of topless men on a beach who were NOT arrested.
the man who got the breast implants was a professionsal gambler and was considerably wealthy. his friends who made the bet were also considerably wealthy and they pooled their money and told him that if he got the implants and kept them in for one year then they would pay for the operation as well as the bet which was for $125,000. that is what he was quoted.
as far as the nipple thing goes, my understanding of the law is more of a progression. (because we constantly push the rules until they are changed) meaning that years back it was obviously the naval that was the forbidden zone, then it went to a portion or % of the breast. I know that some network TV stations forbid the underside of the breast to show (I dont get that one at all) while some laws prohibit the actual aerola or nipple. but if this standard holds true…
Ummm, are you sure you don’t mean Broward County? Because I don’t think such a law exists in Miami/Dade. Haulover Beach is a clothing optional Miami/Dade County park. And though it’s not a designated “clothing optional” beach, South Beach is also often full of topless sunbathing women and sometimes fully nude sunbathers.
Florida state law requires something more lewd and lascivious than mere nudity in order for it to be considered obscene. Counties and cities are free to impose their own restrictions on the land that they control. I don’t believe Miami/Dade is one of those that do.
I believe Broward county has laws such as how many inches of breast or butt cleavage is allowed and what percentage of breast flesh should be visible. These laws are often ignored and rarely enforced.
[just kidding]
Some say the laws were put in place to protect us from the large lilly-white Canadian male snowbirds in tiny speedos or thongs<shudder> and are selectively enforced towards them.
[/just kidding]
One nice summer day, I was patrolling the beach and I was flagged down by a man in his early 30’s. He asked me if thong bikinis were legal on the beach. He told me that he had just seen a girl approximately 19 years old wearing one in the back of a pickup, and he thought I should do something about it. I must have looked like :eek: , because he looked down sheepishly and mumbled, “My wife made me report it”. I never did find the girl (and believe me, I looked!)
Many years ago, a show of male dancers put on a performance in my city, and they served alcohol. In Washington State, it is illegal to have nudity (the definition of which includes the nipple and areola) where alcohol is served, so the Liquor Board made all of the male dancers wear pasties over their nipples.
To sum up, our society is stupid when it comes to nudity!
holy shit you saw that too? I saw it a LONG time ago and every once awhile it pops into my head and the scene on the tv was so bizzare i couldnt remember if it was just something i made up, but now i know it was real… weird.
i wanna know how they got the camera on the inside of the woman :eek:
Only one I can think of that I’ve seen — the French movie Romance directed by Catherine Breillat. (Note: It was a WOMAN director who showed these things. Significant?)
Romance showed erect cocks, penetrations, ejaculation, and openly displayed twat. It was considered a groundbreaking movie at the time (1999) for showing things in an arthouse film that had previously been limited to porno. (Not that anyone since then has followed Breillat’s lead.) But don’t bother checking out the video—all the naughty things I listed were censored out of the video release (at least the Blockbuster version). If you didn’t see it in the theater, you’ll probably never see it.
The sexy Indian film Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love, directed by Mira Nair (another WOMAN director!) had a very brief flash of twat (I mean, visible labia, not just pubic hair) as the nude heroine was turning over in bed—blink, and you miss it. But again, in the video, that flash was edited out. So was another woman’s pubic hair in another scene.
What is it with videos censoring things that were in the theatrical release?
In the Federated States of Micronesia, there is an island where seeing the breast is not taboo. In fact, it is manditory. However, having an uncovered thigh is illegal. This to me would suggest that the fondness of covering the nipple is indeed cultural.
The mandatory part is relatively recent, it became a law in the early 1970s before that it was optional. According to many of the locals, they found that making it illegal for a woman to be on the island with her breasts uncovered kept many of the missionaries out for some reason. I never really understood that (but now that I think about it, I have not seen many missionaries in topless clubs lately).
.
[sup]I’ll bet he wishes they’d blurred his face. There’s logic in that bet.[/sup]