(Post a new comment)

	Ooh, I love this topic! spacelogic 2008-05-17 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	What's the difference between a man's chest and a woman's? Visibly, fat. What's the part regarded as private for women but not for men? The nipple. (That's the bit that's got to be covered for women, yeah?) Flawlessly logical, I've always thought. It's probably related to the fact that many women don't want to go topless because of bouncing, but even so.... (Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Ooh, I love this topic!

tiye
2008-05-17 07:20 pm UTC (link)

I think bottomboob is also considered to be pretty much off-limits, although its close cousin sideboob is okay (albeit borderline). I've never really understood that, either.

Speaking of nipples, your icon reminds me . . . I've noticed that male nipples were often powdered over or covered in foundation or something to make them look less prominent during the many, many times they were shown on Star Trek TOS. I guess this has long been a difficult issue in the history of sexualized body parts.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Ooh, I love this topic! spacelogic 2008-05-17 08:16 pm UTC (link)
	I was thinking of the bathing suits I've seen where the top is basically a nipple-cover. You may be right though. I never noticed that. Hmm. My immediate thought is that could've been because most people still had black and white TVs and I imagine prominent nipples would look weird that way, but otherwise -- that's completely bizarre. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Ooh, I love this topic! tiye 2008-05-17 08:26 pm UTC (link)
	Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. I know they ditched an early concept for Spock where he was going to be bright red or something for that very reason -- he looked awful in black-and-white. PS -- OMG, I just tried doing a Google image search for Kirk shirtless, with safesearch off. D: (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Ooh, I love this topic! iwanttobeasleep 2008-05-17 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	You can tell whoever runs that blog really respects women. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Ooh, I love this topic! tiye 2008-05-17 08:28 pm UTC (link)
	snerk I didn't even bother to read any of it . . . I was just looking for example pictures. Yeah, it's pretty special. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Ooh, I love this topic! seiberwing 2008-05-17 08:41 pm UTC (link)
	I'm reminded of...someone on the internet who saw a documentary on a man (well, male-bodied individual) getting a sex change. During the surgery, they began inflating the breasts, and you could see the exact moment they crossed over from male breasts to female breasts by when they began pixelating the image. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Ooh, I love this topic! greenling 2008-05-22 06:11 am UTC (link)
	Inflating? Was this, like... 1940 or something? o.O Usually they use hormones, ffs. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Ooh, I love this topic! seiberwing 2008-05-22 02:14 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, I only heard about it, I have no idea what was actually going on. (Reply to this)(Parent)

hallidae
2008-05-17 07:15 pm UTC (link)

I'm torn. On one hand, holy shit, that's just skeevy, and he should have at least gotten something for peeping and filming without consent. Because this was at the guy's house, right? I mean, you have a right to privacy on your own property no matter what.

On the other hand, if a man goes topless in public, nobody cares, but if a woman does it (in most US states, at least), it's indecent exposure charges, so although everyone's being idiots about it, I can sort of see where they're coming from.

Argh. ::buries head in hands:: I hate incidents where I can't decide.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	tiye 2008-05-17 07:21 pm UTC (link)
	Yeeeah, that's kind of how I'm feeling about it. No doubt the whole issue is fucked up, but it's hard to quite put your finger on how, exactly, and what should be done about it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	smashingstars 2008-05-17 07:54 pm UTC (link)
	I think it was at a public pool, the Grange Paddocks Pool in the town of Bishop's Stortford. Made the mistake of reading the Telegraph comments. That's never a happy fun time. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	midnight_hawk 2008-05-17 10:13 pm UTC (link)
	This is too bizarre for me to form an opinion. Off topic, I love your icon. I lol'd when I realised what it says. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	tiye 2008-05-17 10:18 pm UTC (link)
	Hee, thanks! I just love how many people on JF are able to read it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	notjo 2008-05-17 11:16 pm UTC (link)
	I am sadly reminded of a case earlier this year where a teenager was filmed in a store (by someone filming under the stairs or something, because it was an up-the-skirt shot) but it was declared okay because no one has an expectation of privacy in a public mall. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	witty 2008-05-18 01:12 am UTC (link)
	Where was this? So I can know to wear pants when I go there. (Or... is this a case for the Mall Ninja? Or does he only care about ass-virginities?) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kattahj 2008-05-31 07:04 am UTC (link)
	There was a similar case in Sweden where a security guard filmed a woman under her skirt, and the court decided it was legal because she hadn't actually noticed. (Her daughter had been the one to ask, "Mommy, why did that man have his cell phone under your skirt?") Blergh. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tree 2008-05-17 11:23 pm UTC (link)
	Some of the comments there are a special level of special. But then that's the Telegraph, so why am I surprised. (Reply to this)

witty
2008-05-18 01:20 am UTC (link)

Ironically, I've seen photos of a man who, to win a bet with his friends, got breast implants so that his chestal area looked very much like women's breasts. (On a man's ordinary, un-hormonated musculature and with generally male clothing.) Sadly, the YouTube video of him on the Man show appears to have gone bye-bye.

So... given that this guy has been photographed topless in public, is he up for public indecency charges, or is the photographer up for "you're a creepy asshole" charges, or both?

(I guess I'm a little surprised that it's not illegal to film a private citizen with the express purpose of going home and wanking to it, but I also guess it would be really hard to write that law in such a way that didn't make every photo on the planet illegal.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	missm 2008-05-18 05:50 pm UTC (link)
	I can't supply that clip, but I can offer this link to John Crichton in temporary possession of Aeryn' boobies as a consolation: (Reply to this)(Parent)

	missm 2008-05-18 05:52 pm UTC (link)
	Apparently embedding video in comments doesn't work: http://www.youtube.com/v/8fD7Uah_QUY&hl=en (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tiye 2008-05-18 06:46 pm UTC (link)
	I think the only guy who got charged with anything was the photographer, but the charges were overturned because there's no law against ogling at/photographing male breasts in public, even if you're doing it creepily. Also: good lord, I hope the stakes were high in that bet. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

witty
2008-05-18 07:18 pm UTC (link)

$100,000US, so yes. Although, I found a follow-up news report dated recently to the effect that, although the bet was only that he'd keep the implants for a year, eight yers later, he still has them. He kind of got used to them, apparently.

(Unfortunately, the man himself appears to be a waste of skin, and spent a whole interview explaining how (a) his breasts help him get chicks and (b) chicks like his breasts because it allows them to pretend to be lesbians. Yeeah.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	redwarrior 2008-05-20 07:24 pm UTC (link)
	...the hell?? People are gong to ogle chests (male AND female) as long as humanity is around. Morons. (Reply to this)