In my humble opinion, a man's chest is no more or less sexual than a woman's. I have known men whose nipples are wholly sensitive and sexually charged. I've also known women who didn't get much thrill out of having their nipples played with at all. So what's the difference? Why this hysteria that surrounds the female breast?
Yes, well ... that's the point, isn't it? The people who made up the rules and laws about the display of the North American female's chest were mostly straight men. And they do find the display of a woman's chest to be entirely more sexual. (Idiots.) Therefore, you should cover up the chest.
Except ... ponder the string bikini, if you will. (Ignore the whole butt floss thing for the moment; we're concerned with the other end, OK? OK.) As exemplified by that particular scrap of fabric, the rule really only seems to say that you should cover up the nipples; letting the rest hang out there is pretty much legally OK. Apparently, it's not considered to be sexual -- or at least, not irresistably or intolerably sexual -- if you can't see the perky bit.
In other words, straight men have nipple fixations. Which makes the whole chest thing weird. I mean, a nipple's a nipple, nonfunctional or otherwise. About the only difference between them is the actual functionality and size.
And who they're attached to, of course.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!