Womens Topless March Attracts Men

Just, wow:

Quote :

PORTLAND – About two dozen women marched topless from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park this afternoon in an effort to erase what they see as a double standard on male and female nudity.

The women, preceded and followed by several hundred boisterous and mostly male onlookers, many of them carrying cameras, stayed on the sidewalk because they hadn't obtained a demonstration permit to walk in the street. About a thousand people gathered as the march passed through Monument Square, a mix of demonstrators, supporters, onlookers and those just out enjoying a warm and sunny early-spring day.

After the marchers reached Tommy's Park in the Old Port, some turned around and walked back to Longfellow Square, but most stayed and mingled in the park. Some happily posed for pictures.

Police said there were no incidents and no arrests – nudity is illegal in Maine only if genitals are displayed.

Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around
topless as it does to men without shirts on.

However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers.

It's times like this I'm glad I'm a (layman) nerd about evolutionary biology, because it hammers home the stupidity of what's being protested.

Because monkeys have bright red butts.

What? You want more justification than that? Fine.

Primates as a whole tend towards swollen/engorged rears as a sign of sexual maturity and virility. When hominids stood upright, something was needed to be at eye level with the males to get their attention, so the breasts, which are normally only engorged in mammals when they are breast feeding (IIRC), became enlarged for the purposes of attracting mates.

So, in other words, the protesters are fighting against about 2-3 million years of evolution (more, if you go to the bright red butts). Sure, socially, there are societies where women walk around topless as a daily routine, but it's very hard to argue that even in those societies men don't stare.

Albeit, probably not as much or overtly as the puritanically repressed states.

^^^No, shut the fuck up you're wrong.

Bunch of creepy fucks if you ask me.

The dudes, not the protesters.

While I appreciate the point and right these protesters are marching for, I don't think this is a right I'd ever take advantage of, but the more power to them.

Yeah, I am stretching it (I realized just before you posted--con sarnit!)

Still, they should have been prepared for creepy fucks in the first place.

Doesn't change the Creepy Fucks from being Creepy, though.

Majin Gojira wrote:

Yeah, I am stretching it (I realized just before you posted--con sarnit!)

Still, they should have been prepared for creepy fucks in the first place.

Doesn't change the Creepy Fucks from being Creepy, though.

Yeah, I see what you were coming from but you're pretty much dead wrong on their intent. They're not trying to make breasts less sexual but pointing out that shirtless men, which are sexy also, are more socially acceptable than shirtless women.

Quote :

Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around
topless as it does to men without shirts on.

It may be poor reporting, but it paints Ty McDowell as a naive optimist.

So, I point out two things which should have warned her in advance about this: Societal History and Biology (which is, I'm realizing, something of a stretch, but still pertinent).

Argh, I remember being outraged by those double-standards as a young child. Even when I was, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the boys from the waist up, I was never allowed to go shirtless when it was hot. The way I got around it? Dressing as a boy during the summer. :D

When I began to 'develop' and thus couldn't even fake any more, it genuinely did feel like a tiny part of my freedom went away. So... good for these women. 'Cause sometimes I do still see men walking around shirtless when it's scorching and want nothing more than to rip off my top and shove it in their evenly-tanned faces.


P.S. Sorry if that all sounds a tad melodramatic. I really, really hate hot weather. It makes me feel like I'm suffocating.

Besides, that's how I roll.

Right, so.

Women go about topless to point out the female toplessness should be just as acceptable as male toplessness even though it isn't and and pervy men (And I'm willing to bet there was a lesbian in there somewhere she just kept quiet) turn up and be pervy men (and ninja lesbian)

I'm on the right track so far?

Okay, so, how are they intending to stop people who just wanna see some boobs?

To the OP: Jesus fucking Christ, the evolutionary explanation is pure bollocks.

Seule, I too was outraged by the double standards. Luckily, so were my parents so before I grew boobies they let me run around in my knickers. Once the boobies came, it became frightfully uncomfortable. Otherwise, I'd totally do it still.

ZoZo wrote:

To the OP: Jesus fucking Christ, the evolutionary explanation is pure bollocks.

To be honest, I'm drawing from other sources for the most part. I wish I could recall the exact sources, but I have a very poor memory.

I think it was a program like "The Human Animal" or some such. If I recall correctly, aside from breasts, lips and other factors were also cited as visual indicators of virility.

Can you elaborate a bit on where the line between Science and Bullox is (if there is one)?

Zozo, my parents let me run around in any state of undress I wanted at home, but in public it had to be fully clothed. I remember going to a school disco when I was 6 or 7 and almost being sent home for taking my top off, even though it was boiling in there and none of the boys were wearing shirts.


I suppose you could even argue that all of this contributes to sexualisation of children. I mean, when I was little I was very much one of those girls who could not for the life of me work out why I shouldn't be treated in the same way as the boys, when I was physically identical to them save for one tiny part. I've known children who didn't even seem aware that girls and boys were different entities up to the age of 10 or so, which is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable. And then there are always those little girls and boys forced into gender identities from babies, told that they can only wear clothes of this colour or style, can only have this sort of hobby, can only act in this way. It's sort of sad, really.

TL;DR: Young children are pretty much genderless, it'd be cool if people realised that more often.

Uh, yeah. I can't remember what I started off saying.

Seule wrote:

Uh, yeah. I can't remember what I started off saying.

Something about wishing you could walk around topless when it was very hot and not feel like the world was staring?

OP, I have no idea if your evolutionary explanation is full of shit or whatever, but I still think it's irrelevant. I find it a very weak argument when people fall back on, "WELL EVOLUTION SAYS THIS ABOUT THAT SO WHAT DO THEY EXPECT." That just doesn't hold water.

Good for these women, though. It's always something that pisses me off - I can't walk around topless in the heat, but all the dudes around me can. Fuck that, especially in 105 degree weather.

I'm with the women in the post. Fuck that noise, it is fucking hot, and if you get to go without a shirt boys, so do I. We can sneak peeks at each other and call it even.

I'm saying this as I sit in a house with a broken air conditioning. Fuck this.

Or you know

We could not display the horrible monstrosity that is the human body mutually.

VVVV

Quote :

(though being the contrarian that I was, my preferred solution was to ban male toplessness too)

See Drabb knows what I'm talking about.

When I was younger, the obvious double standard bothered me, as well (though being the contrarian that I was, my preferred solution was to ban male toplessness too). So I have no problem with the march or its goals. However, getting enraged over a consequence that was not only foreseeable but inevitable only works to undermine the cause.

The evolutionary biology stuff is a red herring. Yes, men will stare at topless women. Men stare at clothed women, and women stare at topless and clothed men. The issue here was that men came out to ogle the women, and that is a consequence of the longstanding stigma attached to female toplessness and enjoyment of same. Given the chance to do so in public, legally, yeah, they took advantage. Getting that to stop would, like it or not, be a long-term benefit of the women achieving their goal; make public female toplessness ordinary enough, and men will still stare, but they won't go too far out of their way to do so. In the meantime, though, complaining just gives opponents a reason to keep the ban going.

My body is pretty good, actually. Though my boobs are only a B-cup, so its not like they're terribly interesting. Hell, boobs in general stop being very interesting after you get used to them.

First of all, Seule, ILU <3

Majin Gojira wrote:

To be honest, I'm drawing from other sources for the most part. I wish I could recall the exact sources, but I have a very poor memory.

"I read somewhere". Not the strongest start to an argument, I'm afraid. This is why, once I've dealt with this post, I will be providing citations as to why you're wrong.

Majin Gojira wrote:

I think it was a program like "The Human Animal" or some such.

I hadn't heard of this, so I googled. IMDB page has a review including this:

Quote :

However, much of the program wanders into the territory of speculation (and perhaps filmmaker bias), but treats these speculations with as much weight as the facts and established theories. A credulous audience could be mislead.

So you may already be doubting the veracity of your statements.

Majin Gojira wrote:

If I recall correctly, aside from breasts, lips and other factors were also cited as visual indicators of virility.

So? This does not logically follow that men will gawp and follow around topless women.

Majin Gojira wrote:

Can you elaborate a bit on where the line between Science and Bullox is (if there is one)?

First of all, you are stupid. The word was written right above, in my quote, and you still spelt it wrong. "Bollocks". B. O. L. L. O. C. K. S. It isn't even pronounced the way you think it is.

Now, the line between science and bollocks is simple. Science has a way of doing things, known as the scientific method. We scientists believe that when we observe something, it is probably coloured by our beliefs. So we test it, using the fairest possible test. It goes a bit like this: once we've looked into the research of a phenomenon, we make a prediction called a "hypothesis". "If I do X, Y will happen". "If X changes, Y will change too". Something like that. Then we test that with an experiment. We try as hard as possible to make it a fair test, trying to stop all the other influences. Then we analyse what we found, perhaps using statistics. If it turns out our hypothesis was wrong, we make new ones.

It's not a perfect method, and I could type an incredibly long post on problems with the scientific method, but I won't as I expect I'm going to have to spend a lot longer on this post. One final bit of reading for you might be the wikipedia page which gives a pretty full account of the method.

I hope it's become apparent to you why I posted this rather long explanation. Let's take your original post: you say that men cannot help but ogle women because primates have swollen arses. That's not even a hypothesis. That's an observation. That's the very beginning of science: you observe something. It's not science yet. A hypothesis based on this sort of vague theory might be "Men will look at large breasts for longer than small breasts". Then you'd test the hypothesis.

The major shortcomings of evolutionary explanations of human behaviour are twofold: first, there is relatively little empirical evidence (experiments). A lot of it stops with theories and hypothesis. Second, the media trumpets those theories as though they are fact. When you have the time, I'd strongly suggest reading Ben Goldacre's articles on these. Goldacre writes very accessibly about the things you read in the papers, and you'll learn a lot about how to sort "the science from the bollocks".

So that's why the stuff is bollocks. I think others in this thread have rather neatly summarised why it's not just bollocks, but it's dangerous bollocks. To reiterate, you're excusing unacceptable behaviour with pseudoscience.

I hope this helps. I don't believe stupidity to be a lasting trait, so read, digest, and I hope you will become less stupid.

Zozo.

Will you be the cream to my corn?

Mafiosa wrote:

Or you know

We could not display the horrible monstrosity that is the human body mutually.

VVVV

Quote :

(though being the contrarian that I was, my preferred solution was to ban male toplessness too)

See Drabb knows what I'm talking about.

No. Nooo. Nooooo. If y´all ban male shirtlessness, I´m segregating into a happy hippie fun land where clothes are optional.
This land will, preferably, be somewhere around mediterranean latitudes.

First off, thanks for the elaboration.

A few things, however.

Quote :

"I read somewhere". Not the strongest start to an
argument, I'm afraid. This is why, once I've dealt with this post, I
will be providing citations as to why you're wrong.

Which is something I thank you for, but also already acknowledge in the quoted segment, so it kinda loses its authoritative nature.

The IMDB (as good a source as that is) revelation is indeed interesting.

Quote :

So? This
does not logically follow that men will
gawp and follow around topless women.

Probably not, and I fully agree that I overstated the bounds of
biological indicators such as these in a social context. I was under the initial impression that you were dismissing it outright.

I'm actually rather well aware of both the scientific method and the difficulty of evolution in regards to human beings given our extreme need for social interaction.

Quote :

I hope it's become apparent to you why I posted
this rather long explanation.

Generally to make certain that your stance was authoritative and prevent arguments of "You're just a voice on the internet."

Don't worry, you have me convinced.

And, primarily, to make sure that we have common ground for discussion.

Quote :

Let's take your original post: you say
that men cannot help but ogle women because primates have swollen arses.
That's not even a hypothesis. That's an observation. That's the very
beginning of science: you observe something. It's not science yet. A
hypothesis based on this sort of vague theory might be "Men will look at
large breasts for longer than small breasts". Then you'd test the
hypothesis.

The major shortcomings of evolutionary explanations
of human behavior are twofold: first, there is relatively little
empirical evidence (experiments).

On the board where I first made a comment on this article along those lines, I ended up eventually adding:

Quote :

Of all the topics to wonder if a study's been done on, I think of
"Cultural Differences and time spent staring at breasts."

Getting people to sit in an eye tracking machine alone will be hard to do.

Quote :

A lot of it stops with theories and
hypothesis. Second, the media trumpets those theories as though they are
fact.

As a primarily Paleo-Buff who watched "Clash of the Dinosuars" I don't need to be told twice. The quote mining that miniseries (I refuse to call it a Documentary) did was on an unheard of scale.

Quote :

When you have the time, I'd strongly suggest reading Ben Goldacre's articles on these.
Goldacre writes very accessibly about the things you read in the papers,
and you'll learn a lot about how to sort "the science from the
bollocks".

I'll have to check them out.

Though, topic shifting slightly, I was under the impression (second hand from discussing with majors in the field, a few intro courses in college, etc.) that at least in the field of Psychology (at least 2002-2005-ish), more and more of human behavior was being reassigned to the "Nature" side of things (and thus, bio-chemical/biological) rather than "Nurture." Sorta ties in with human behavior-evolutionary precedent thing.

But that could have been shot down in the last 5+ years and died a horrible death. Unless Goldrace touches on that too.

Quote :

I hope this helps. I don't believe
stupidity to be a lasting trait, so read, digest, and I hope you will
become less stupid.

Less Ignorant. Stupid is something a bit more inherent from its definition.

Just to be annoying over the Bollocks thing

Part of me doesn't understand all this, but then I also turn my head from nudity on reflex no matter the gender, find breasts to be little more than an awesome cuddle pillow and hate to take my shirt off no matter what cause I hate my upper body.
That said, as a very clever person has said to me once or twice, one person doesn't make a trend, so the fact I'm like this means squat.
What I'm getting at, or trying to anyway, is that nudity is only sexual if we perceive it as such, and as long as Religions say that it's sinful, the media sexes up anything it can and the porn industry is what it is, this is gonna be a hard fight.
But one I think is worth fighting and one I hope that, if not won, is maybe drawn level.

I think I had a point in there somewhere...

Personally, I have no wish to walk around topless, my boobs look much better in a tight t-shirt. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Majin Gojira wrote:

Though, topic shifting slightly, I was under the impression (second hand from discussing with majors in the field, a few intro courses in college, etc.) that at least in the field of Psychology (at least 2002-2005-ish), more and more of human behavior was being reassigned to the "Nature" side of things (and thus, bio-chemical/biological) rather than "Nurture." Sorta ties in with human behavior-evolutionary precedent thing.

Urm, considering that psychological theories are, by their very nature, entirely hypothetical, I don't think that "being reassigned" is really the best choice of words for you there.

As for the nature v. nurture side of things, you are wrong. Scientists have been arguing about nature versus nurture for ages, and it is fairly evenly balanced between the two sides. I can guarantee that for every "natural" hypothesis you will find at least one "nurtural" hypothesis, and vice versa. The most credible hypotheses tend to acknowledge input from both.


However, I do not intend to mimic you and make grand statements with nothing to back it up. Here are some articles about what I just said. A quick Google before you post can save you a lot of grief, you know.

ZoZo wrote:

Awesome stuff

EDIT:

vvvv Fewer. vvvv

PEOPLE WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN OBESITY EPIDEMIC

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WE NEED MORE CLOTHES ON PEOPLE NOT LESS

Wouldn't staring lewdly at bare-chested men until they felt embarrassed and covered themselves have been a better way of expressing discontent?

Oh, wait. Now I get it.

FWIW, I read about the female breasts as surrogates for a butt in Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape.