Trigger warning for mentions of rape, and NSFW warning for pictures of shirtless people.
Occasionally, I ask people to explain things. My latest project has been asking people to explain why women can’t take their shirts off in public. Barring circular answers (“it’s obscene!” “it’s just not appropriate”) and irrelevancies (“hubba hubba”), the answers have mostly been in two groups:
1) “Men aren’t attractive the same way women are.”
2) “There are some men who will, you know, take that as an invitation…”
To both of which I say: bullSHIT.
I am pansexual, which basically means I have attraction superpowers. I like everyone! (And/or cooking implements.) As a pansexual, I will be pleased to inform you that she:
Amanda Fucking Palmer, naked, with words written on her.
and he:
Zach Galiafwhatever, sporting a somewhat distressing beard and only half a shirt.
Are both people I feel a quite intense physical attraction to upon looking at their shirtless pictures. And here’s the thing: I am not any less attracted to the man than I am to the woman! They are both attractive! I would like to bang both of them! There is no qualitative difference between my attraction to them, unless you count my assiduous avoidance of The Hangover so I will continue to want to bang Mr. Galiafwhatever. Our culture seems to have this bizarre idea that people would want to have sex with Ms. Fucking Palmer because tits, and people would want to have sex with Mr. Galiafwhatever because he’s funny. Nope. I want to bang them both because they’re fucksexy.
What’s more, nearly all straight women experience the same pleasurable groinal feelings as I do when they look at men. Perhaps not Mr. Galiafwhatever, though. Perhaps they prefer:
|
William Beckett, skinny prettyboy!
Vin Diesel, the world’s most well-muscled D&D player!
Daniel Dae Kim, who was in Lost or something oh who cares HE IS THE SEXIEST.
Or something else! The world of what turns women on is very diverse and very inadequately represented by Google Image Search, insofar as GIS is under the impression that “hot guy” means “hairless muscular white dude,” someone Photoshopped “calling Slimfast and 24-hour-fitness, Help!!!” on David Krumholtz’s perfectly attractive if somewhat chubby body, and neither Masi Oka nor Peter Dinklage nor Bill Nighy have apparently taken their shirts off in public.
Alan Rickman has, but he is quite shy and hiding behind a Grecian statue.
My point being! Straight and bi women like men’s bodies! The only reason that (1) doesn’t apply to men is that we believe that women are incapable of attraction and men are incapable of being attractive, which I hope I have adequately disproved with my collection of shirtless men of assorted body types.
(2) is horrifically sexist, of course, because as shocking as it seems the vast majority of men are capable of being turned on and enjoying it, without responding with “I must rape you you sexy person!” Most rapists are motivated by power and revenge, not sexual arousal, and deliberately select victims who are vulnerable and incapable of fighting back and defending themselves. There are plenty of shirtless people who can defend themselves! But even if you grant this “male sexuality is inherently sexist” notion, which is misandric on the face of it, what about gay dudes? You’d think they’d be running about the place raping every man who takes his shirt off when playing basketball.
Hrm. Maybe that’s why homophobes are scared of gay dudes.
Basically, it’s hot out, and I want to be able to take my shirt off when I’m all sweaty even though I have boobs, and also post lots of pictures of shirtless men. This is clearly the most important frontier of gender activism.
About ozyfrantz
Ok, folks, try this one.
Have a male friend go to Ontario Canada where it is legal for women to take off their shirts. Have the male friend take of his shirt, then you as a female or male, go up and rub his chest, not have him to to the police and claim you sexually assaulted him, see , what they say. NOW, reverse the genders and see what happens.
Laws are such that the men who made the claim would be laughed at, by the police and prosecutors, where as the women wouldnt be.
Maybe, but that’s a problem with the (male-dominated) police, so I don’t really see your point regarding this article. Please cite a law against sexual harassment/unwanted bodily contact that isn’t at least on the paper gender neutral.
Actually it doesn’t have much to do with the police, male-dominated or not, since already at the beginning it’s ok to tuch a mans breasts but not a woman.
Just the hand on the breast when you stop someone is ok on a man where on a woman you better aim well with that hand or you get slapped.
I have a question: could you cite a public nudity law that isn’t gender neutral, at least on paper?
Arizona:
A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and…
Delaware:
a) A male is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if he exposes his genitals or buttocks under circumstances… (b) A female is guilty of indecent exposure in the second degree if she exposes her genitals, breast or buttocks under circumstances…
Indiana:
(b) “Nudity’ [for the purpose of this public indecency statute]‘ means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
Louisiana:
A. The crime of obscenity is the intentional: (1) Exposure of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breast nipples in…
Etc, etc.
And that’s without even getting into inconsistent caselaw.
Awww… someone actually did work. Now I need to cite unequal sexual battery laws.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar42/ch4.html
Scroll to sexual battery. So yes, we can find sexual assault laws that aren’t equal.
http://www.nudistlaw.com/state_laws.htm
If anyone else wants to take advantage of the approximately 2 minutes of “work” that I did.
Although I elided anything not directly relevant to gender parity, it is true that many states, including some of those I mention, make “lewdness”, intent to alarm, or similar, part of the mens rea.
Not, apparently, Indiana, though. Which also has the distinction of allowing men to be guilty of public nudity while completely clothed if their genitalia are “discernibly turgid”.
According to that logic, it would make better sense if men had to wear shirts at all times, while females should be able to go nude freely, as they are the ones who have the protection of the law behind them.
Hi, long time listener first time caller, as were.
1. As a man who looks like a slightly denser through the shoulders version of Mr. Zach… Person… it’s really affirming to see his body time referred as explicitly attractive in an outlet like this. Kind of shallow, I know, but it’s rare enough to stand out so thank you for mentioning.
2. It also makes me really sad that the discourse is so poisoned that the picture of AP would… really come across as anything other than a very cheerful looking shirtless person with a pretty smile. I mean, I know I probably sound really goofy saying this, and yeah, she’s got a very nice body, but mostly I notice how lovely her smile is and how comfortable she looks, and it’s always nice to see someone quite comfortable with his or her body… and lots of writing on.
I find that kind of body attractive myself. So there.
Thank you Ozy.
)
You’re fu***ng awesome. 8)
(opps! Can I say “awesome” here?
I long for a world where we can do whatever we want with our own bodies.
Right now, I say that forbidding women to take off their shirts is just hypocritical and sexist.
Of course, you cannot get real answers to your question, because the subject matter really is BS. Specifically:
1) Men are attractive to whomever find them attractive (c’mon, if men weren’t attractive, our species would have vanished long ago…)
2) Rules of consent still apply. Many men are attracted even by completely clothed women, so having them half-naked won’t change much. We desire women anyway, anywhere, anytime! And we are used to repress that desire.
Again, having breasts exposed won’t change much.
When miniskirts became widespread in the ’60s, many people cried out men would not be able to resist to bare legs… the same protest and fears have been heard over and over, through time, when costumes changed.
BTW, main proof being naked is nothing dangerous, is naturist people: they are naked by choice, and you never hear trouble from them.
Once something becomes a habit, nobody cares anymore.
“1) Men are attractive to whomever find them attractive (c’mon, if men weren’t attractive, our species would have vanished long ago…)”
Well. Yes. But…
Saying that women are attracted to men, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are attracted to his body, or images thereof.
(I have asked this specific question on a number of discussion boards where the subject has been brought up, and it seems to be a fair number of women having sex with their husbands or male partners despite and not because of their visual apperance.)
2. WRT Ozy ” insofar as GIS is under the impression that “hot guy” means “hairless muscular white dude,”
Well, regarding your sample of pictures, I get the impression that “hot guy” first and foremost means “Famous guy”, with “hairless, muscular or lean” clocking in as viable options.
Yep, because famous guys are the ones who have large numbers of pictures of them on the Internet.
And the whole “hairless, muscular, lean” thing is an annoying side effect of the fact that conventionally attractive people are more likely to have attractive shots of them with their shirts off, so even when one puts some effort into getting different body types and actively dislikes muscles, one *still* ends up with two muscley dudes.
“Yep, because famous guys are the ones who have large numbers of pictures of them on the Internet. ”
Yeah I know. So much for circular arguments, right?
But, as a rather cis-straight-male kind of guy, the pic of William Beckett seems to do more for me than the one of Amanda Palmer…!
IDK, but I think it’s more the smile and tousled hair than the torso. And I’m getting distracted by the text, “What does it say and what’s the story behind it?” kinda thing more than “WHOA, hot chick with naked chest!”.
Sorry. You were sayin’…??
And also, since I complimented Noah Brand for being a brave person in his naked-photos-post, pass my likewise compliments to Amanda Palmer.
(WRT the last post: The relative uninterest in her upper body display is probably just a sign of my age…)
Honestly, the thing about naked people is that we only really care because we’re told we should care. Society says “Naked woman chest = Sexual, Naked man chest = Not sexual.”
The thing is, I don’t find nudity particularly erotic, except during sexual situations. If there’s a naked guy doing laundry, I’m probably not thinking “ooh, must look at naked laundry man.’ I’m probably thinking about the laundy. Because unless they pose or something, naked people aren’t really that sexy to me.
Yeah. If you believe that mere nudity is erotic, then it’s fairly likely that you will find it erotic. If you don’t, then you definitely won’t. I had some discussion with a number people in the early 1990s (not on the internet, obviously) on this subject and it turned out that most of the people I spoke to were aware of this, yet they would rather live in a world were mere nudity was considered erotic because “it would lose a special something” if it wasn’t. (Or something along those general lines – one person specifically said “it would reduce attraction to ass-sniffing” whatever *that* means.) I have no idea if that attitude was actually widespread at the time or a local quirk, and whether it’s still prevalent either way.
Sooo…. I’m going to crush some of the righteous anger here. In some states at least like say… Wisconsin https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/944 (scroll to 944.20) nothing is mentioned about women not being able to take their shirts off. … (Although there’s still an exemption for breast feeding I’m not sure why…)
It is true that women being topless is not illegal in a lot of places. The issue is not so much the law as the fact that there is a lot of cultural stigma about women being topless. I think that until that changes any woman who goes around topless will be subject to a lot of negative attention, from disapproving and judgemental stares to people muttering that she’s ‘just doing it for attention’. Even if the attention is not all negative, if you’re just trying to go about your day it would be so much easier to just wear a shirt and not stand out, even if it means you can’t cool down as much. This is what the ‘righteous anger’ is about. (Of course in some places, this stigma does translate into laws.)
“I think that until that changes any woman who goes around topless will be subject to a lot of negative attention, from disapproving and judgemental stares to people muttering that she’s ‘just doing it for attention’. ”
A guy in a speedo will get the same, even more if he’s overweight.
“Even if the attention is not all negative, if you’re just trying to go about your day it would be so much easier to just wear a shirt and not stand out, even if it means you can’t cool down as much.”
I also like lolita fashion dresses a lot, but if I couldn’t stomach the attention it gets, I shouldn’t bother, not blame society for giving me attention.
It’s always “easier” to just fit in, do stuff you don’t like but that won’t make waves…it doesn’t make it better.
“A guy in a speedo will get the same, even more if he’s overweight.”
A female-bodied person will too, and does. You’re talking about genitals.
“I also like lolita fashion dresses a lot, but if I couldn’t stomach the attention it gets, I shouldn’t bother, not blame society for giving me attention.”
Should we only question society’s reaction to stepping outside the status quo when it comes to things you’re not willing to suck up?
Stepping outside the status-quo will always draw some attention.
As long as it doesn’t provoke undue grievances to being able to rent or buy real estate, work in businesses, or outright public (physical or verbal) violence, such it is, suck it up or don’t do it.
Cross-dressing men have been fired for being cross-dressed off the job. That’s undue grievance in work. Trans people have been fired for legalities, and making people squeamish about their gender presentation (especially if they don’t are seen as trans visually), they’ve also been presented from renting property, and even using public facilities like locker rooms and bathrooms. That’s undue grievance about work, leisure and home renting.
Being gawked at will happen if I wear lolita fashion, but no one will jump at me, no one will call the police on me, no one will refuse to hire me, or refuse to rent to me for it. They probably won’t insult me either, unless I look like a man in a dress (I don’t FTR, even though I am trans). They might find it cute, endearing, outdated, superfluous or just weird, and they’ll look because it’s unusual.
You want something to not be unusual before you do it? Wait for brave pioneers to pave the road, or pave it yourself. It sure won’t pave itself.
The issue is that men can walk around with their shirts off in public when it’s hot as much as they want to, but women can’t. It’s the exact equivalent, and there are certainly other things you can wear that draw attention, like certain fashions, but they are not exact equivalents to this. The fact that to make an equivalent example to my original comment you had to make a man take even MORE clothes off, and wear just a speedo, is quite telling. If a woman walking around in nothing but a tiny pair of swimsuit briefs stands out because the briefs are revealing, and NOT because she’s topless, then that would be an equivalent.
I still think that before women can feel comfortable walking around topless we would need to change the way people think about nude female upper bodies. For now, loads of people still have problems with public breastfeeding. I think we have a long way to go. And while you may consider that feminist minded women whipping their shirts off in public as much as possible to change attitudes will be the way forward, I can empathise with those who would never have the courage to do this until attitudes change a little first.
“And while you may consider that feminist minded women whipping their shirts off in public as much as possible to change attitudes will be the way forward, I can empathise with those who would never have the courage to do this until attitudes change a little first.”
Okay, but not wanting to be a trailblazer yourself won’t pave the roads.
Be a trailblazer, or encourage people to be. Don’t complain at trees for being in the way. The attitude won’t change until the attitude changes. You can’t complain at it.
I don’t have a problem with female strangers taking off their tops. The problem is with women I know. Do you really want to see your sister, niece, or daughter topless? Some female friends or coworkers could be awkward also. What if they had an exceptional pair of boobs? You know you’re not supposed to notice, but how can you not?
@John Anderson: “The problem is with women I know. Do you really want to see your sister, niece, or daughter topless?”
Want it or not, that should not be THEIR business (otherwise, that would be akin to say “Women should not wear sexy outfits, because that makes men excited”).
Of course, realizing that a woman kin to you is a sexual being might make you uncomfortable. But she IS a sexual being, regardless you notice it or not.
Even a mom is, despite the fact that most children would not want to think to her that way (in USA, at least).
In other cultures, hair are considered sexy, thus women have to cover them. Should you support a law that forbids women to reveal their hair?
Anyway, everything becomes “normal” with time. Even uncovered breasts would be perceived as natural, after a (maybe long) while.
Thank you for this Valter. Women see men they know (and are related to) shirtless all the time. Depending on our attraction to them (and believe me it’s possible to acknowledge that one’s cousin is built well, all while tamping down attracting due to taboo issues), it can be more or less comfortable. Women find men attractive and I’d say we enjoy seeing many of them half clothed.
I’m not sure how folks handle it in Europe, where a family might be on the beach and a mother takes her top off, but perhaps you’ve got a take on that Valter? Are the topless ladies on beaches mostly un-mothered, and not with family, or does one see a combination?
Mothers are still sexual beings. We hate hearing about how we aren’t or shouldn’t be, or at least I do. I suspect the more we see of bodies the less of a big deal it all becomes.
@Julie Gillis: “I’m not sure how folks handle it in Europe, where a family might be on the beach and a mother takes her top off, but perhaps you’ve got a take on that Valter?”
).
I don’t know much, because here in Italy (traditional and mostly catholic country, alas) people never go around topless (again, alas
But I know that in France some women go topless on the beach, and – of course – naturist people and families do that… and nobody makes a fuss, AFAIK.
@Julie Gillis: “I suspect the more we see of bodies the less of a big deal it all becomes.”
Yep. Everything becomes a habit, after a while.
Agreed. I’ve said before, feel whatever you want to feel, but don’t expect me to conform to make you feel better. If you want to think I’m a rapist walking down the street, go right ahead and think that. But once your feelings start impacting me, ether by telling me I need to go out of my way to avoid you, telling me it’s my responsibility to stop rape so you don’t feel that way or you start yelling for help when I’ve done nothing, then that becomes a problem.
So that remains applicable here. If I’m uncomfortable seeing my family members breasts, that’s my problem, and they shouldn’t be expected to wear a shirt to pamper my sensibilities.
It women started going shirtless as frequently as men, the “sexual” aspect of the display would certainly wear off. A big reason why people are so attracted to breasts is because they don’t get to see them often enough in a non-sexual context … kind of like feet, belly buttons, or long hair in some other cultures.
It’s incredibly unfair to create a hostile environment and then insist that people comply with the rules for their own protection.
I totally agree with this. I’ve pointed out elsewhere that yeah, as a lesbian I’m totally ‘guilty’ of viewing breasts as sexual body parts (just like I’m sure straight/bi women and gay/bi men view men’s chests as sexual body parts, I’m sure). And I’ve definitely had to catch myself from staring at a woman’s breasts a few times…especially when I was sort of just realizing I was actually attracted to women.
But I definitely agree that breasts aren’t inherently more sexual than a man’s chest…our culture has just framed them as such.
@HeatherN: “But I definitely agree that breasts aren’t inherently more sexual than a man’s chest…”
I think they are.
Since they’re used (some say “meant”) for breastfeeding, they have an inherently sexual quality. I think it’s biological and built-in.
The fact that both gender’s genitalia are hidden, but just female’s chest have to be covered, is telling. Breasts have a huge emotional power.
Still, that’s not a reason to forbid women wearing what they want (or not).
“Since they’re used (some say “meant”) for breastfeeding, they have an inherently sexual quality. I think it’s biological and built-in.”
Um, no. First, men’s breasts can lactate too. Second, even if they were made for breastfeeding, that has absolutely nothing to do with sex. Being made for breastfeeding doesn’t mean they’ll have a sexual quality to them.
“The fact that both gender’s genitalia are hidden, but just female’s chest have to be covered, is telling. Breasts have a huge emotional power.”
That is CULTURAL. In societies where women walk around uncovered, men aren’t like overcome at the sight or whatever. It’s a cultural thing.
There is actually a neurological difference between the chest of a man and the chest of a woman, namely that stimulation of a woman’s nipples also causes her genital stimulation, whereas the same is not true of men* (I don’t know if/how this may apply to trans or gender non-binary people, I think the study only used cis participants).
Now I think the effect that behaviour and culture have on neurology is vastly underestimated in the general population so I wouldn’t say this difference isn’t cultural per se, but nor can we say that the only difference is a cultural one without further research. Of course this difference might very well have no effect on what makes for good public policy, I just thought it was worth a mention.
* Sorry the study is behind a paywall, but that’s what the abstract says.
@Yiab: “stimulation of a woman’s nipples also causes her genital stimulation, whereas the same is not true of men”
YES! (and thank you for the quote)
I can confirm that from personal experience (as most women would do, I think).
OTOH, my response to nipple stimulation (and most men’s, I think) is just “meh” or – at best – mildly pleasant.
I even read that some women can orgasm through nipple/breast stimulation only. No way this would happen to a man.
HeatherN’s stance seem rooted in the need to see men and women as equal; in many cases (bodies included), they are not.
So, Valter….I’ve met men who had extraordinarily sensitive nipples and enjoyed them during sex immensely, like a straight line to the groin. I’ve also met men for whom earlobes were near ecstasy. I’ve met women who….well, let’s just say their toes were somehow granted strange nerve pathways. I don’t know that we can ever say “Men’s bodies are like this, they never experience orgasm any other way but…” or the same for women.
I believe that there have been cases of men who have experienced orgasm through nipple stim or earlobe stimulus after after paralyis. See the Chris Reeve foundation for more info.
I’d paraphrase Heather by saying, everyone has a different experience and men and women are equal in the sense that the parts all have the potential to cause pleasure. Some women don’t need clitoral stim, some do. Some people love odd things, some people don’t.
But to say “women always” or “men never” seems silly to me.
@Julie Gillis: “men and women are equal in the sense that the parts all have the potential to cause pleasure”
Theoretically, yes. Practically, not always.
Your stance (Julie and Heather) seems one of loving the idea so much (men and women as equal), to ignore practical reality. If men and women really were so much alike, there would not be so much conflict and misunderstandings.
Sometimes (MANY times!) a man and a woman really look like they’re coming from different planets…
Listening to spouses complaints, you hear the same issues over and over.
@JG: “to say “women always” or “men never” seems silly to me.”
I agree with you that generalizations can be silly. Yet, sometimes they’re needed when talking about things at large (not specific individuals), and sometimes they’re just true (or mostly true).
Otherwise, subjects like psychology or sociology would not exist.
- Women always love receiving flowers? Check! (or 99% check)
- Men are never able to get pregnant? Check!
So, you see, there ARE differences… or trends. Like men having (on average) more testosterone, or being willing to have sex no-matter-what: not always true, but usually true.
In understanding reality, we must tell the rule from the exception.
You seem to pick exceptions because you dislike the rule…
@Julie Gillis: “I’m saying no one is alike.”
Yes and no.
Everybody is unique… yet we all share commonalities.
“I myself am an outlier in many ways”
So am I (most of the times).
Yet, I see trends and commonalities (even when they’re far from my personal experience).
“I don’t like hearing that my experiences aren’t somehow just as real as yours.”
Your experiences are – of course! – real; but they do not necessarily represent reality at large. You seem to think they do, and that’s what I’m objecting to, usually.
“That I have a knack for the odd and unusual?”
That’s most likely!
All in all, it seems to me you’re often focusing on the exceptions, I’m more focusing on the rules (because I need to understand common behaviours and events).
Rules and exceptions are both real, but the former are more statistically meaningful than the latter.
Perhaps we could say that I stare at the forest (and I see similarities), you look at the trees (and you see their uniqueness).
I’d say my stand of trees that I”m most familiar with doesn’t look like the rest of the forest. And from what I can tell (reading here especially) my stand of trees has a lot less conflict, sex, happiness and acceptance than some of the other sections. Sometimes I read stories here and I just have such a hard time believing they are true. I do, you know, believe the writers. But I don’t recognize it, and it sounds quite sad.
As a bisexual person, I have some involvement in the gay community, and apparently men liking nipple stimulation is a very common thing. (I do to.) So unless it’s partly tied to one’s sexual preference, I don’t think there’s actually all that much difference between the sexes. (Not all women like it or get much out of it either.) As for the genital connection, well, women’s genitalia get aroused too, it’s just that the visual changes are so subtle that most people wouldn’t notice with a casual look.
Actually there are people of both genders who can reach orgasm without physical stimulus.
Yeah, mate, that’s not always true though. I know men that LOVE having their nipples played with, and women who actually don’t react sexually to having their nipples stimulated at all.
As a rule, studies talk about averages and tendencies. This does not necessitate that the traits being discussed are universal, nor does that variability detract from the fact that there is a real quantitative difference being presented.
Remember also that this study cannot separate innate biological traits from deeply ingrained cultural ones, and that it does not make a policy prescription. I merely presented it as a point of data relevant to the discussion.
As a man who has had breasts since he was twelve, I find going topless very uncomfortable. In general I feel there’s enough body policing to go around.
Just the other day I was reading about neural tissue engineering and nerve regeneration in the peripheral nervous system . One of the new-ish techniques in this field involves replacing damaged efferent neurons with afferent neurons to restore (limited) motor functionality. The fascinating thing to me is that the afferent neuron still “terminates” in the same area of the brain, requiring our neural pathways to reorganize to a certain extent to relearn control of the affected muscle.
All of the discussion about whether female nipples are “sexual” or not, or have some unique sexual response that male nipples do not, reminds me that the determination as to what type of sensations leads to which responses happens in the brain. While recent research has helped us understand the action more, sexual response due to nipple stimulation isn’t completely autonomic. As with many things, our conscious processes can heavily influence what we find arousing.
Since breast tissue arises from the same stem cells in both men and women, it shouldn’t surprise us that nipple stimulation would lead to similar results in men and women. Women’s breasts aren’t different in nature than those of men, they’re just more developed. Both men and women report that nipple stimulation detracts from sexual arousal at about the same rates. What is difficult to know is whether the larger difference in nipple stimulation enhancing sexual arousal (about 80% for women vs 50% for men) is due to the male breast tissue being more rudimentary or because of socialization factors that might cause men to either underreport the effects of stimulation on arousal, or ultimately to dissociate nipple stimulation from sexual arousal.
I feel like I’m such a prude for saying this, but I would prefer if women weren’t allowed to go topless in public. I’d be okay if men couldn’t take of their shirts as well. I feel like some parts of the body are for only those you are intimate with. However, my feelings on this stem from my extreme insecurity and I would feel jealous every time my man and I went out in public and he stared at another topless woman. Plus I wouldn’t want to go topless because gravity is not my friend. I believe there should be equality, which makes me say that men should have to have their shirt on as well.