yes! if male nipples do not have to be covered, then same should apply for women

Not always. There are a ton of women that get absolutely no sexual pleasure from their breasts/nipples being stimulated. That is an over exaggeration. I mean only 1% of women are capable of having orgasms from breast/nipple stimulation compared to how many get orgasms from ****oris stimulation? It's not the same thing. Breasts are not sex organs. They are not connected to the female reproductive system and are not necessary for sexual intercourse. People only see them as sex organs because that's the image that was forced on them. They're not actually sexual.

Yes, not always. But even women who don't usually get and don't want to be aroused will given the right kind of stimulation. Female breast stimulation have the same sexual wiring to the brain as stimulation of their genitals.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...womens-breasts
http://www.livescience.com/15380-nip...brain-map.html

Also, a body part does not have to take part in intercourse to be considered a sex organ. Breasts are dimorphic between the sexes. Women's breasts are larger and serve the purpose (apart from breastfeeding) of signaling the sex and reproductive state of the individual, and for attracting men. Men are naturally attracted to womens breasts and are aroused by the sight of them just as they are aroused by the sight of vagina. Women's breasts are also one of their most sensitive external body parts (even moreso than men's) that it is only necessary for them not to be exposed all the time for normal functioning.

I will not REST until every hot men in my classes are shirtless. #FreeTheNipples

that doesn't make sense. my feet are sensitive enough that i shiver if they're pressed on or rubbed, but i can still be able to "normally function" without shoes on because the majority of the time that will only happen if someone does it intentionally.

actually, that can happen with a lot of different body parts. if we're just going by the definition of it making you aroused with the right kind of stimulation, then that applies to places like the neck and lips, but those aren't considered indecent.

i agree with this

however, I think the difference between chests is the fact that womens breasts serve a purpose not only sexually but to provide for their children. thats why they're sacred. mens chests and specifically their nipples dont serve any purpose. theyre insignificant.

look I'm a woman and have breasts and I can assure you I am not constantly in danger of getting aroused or having orgasms when I have my shirt off. That's really not how it works Unless I'm in a sexual state of mind and somebody is straight up grabbing my titties, I'm not going to be aroused just because my breasts are exposed. And women should never be barred from doing something solely because of how men will react. That is allowing men to control women and that is not okay. In that situation the problem lies with the men, not the women and it's the men who should change and realize they're just breasts. The only reason men go crazy for them now is because of how extremely oversexualized society has made them, like someone else said that is partially because of them constantly being hidden away and therefore taboo. If women were always allowed to show their breasts, men wouldn't have any type of reaction upon seeing them. They'd be thought of just like an arm or something.

Physiologically, women's breasts are their most sensitive external body parts (apart from the vagina), They don't really like the cold all that much, and sudden impact or considerable pressure would hurt them. And a slightest damage to them is also likely to alter a woman's mating prowess/prospects. Thus, women started covering them as a means of protection long before all the sexual taboos came about.

Yes. But the arousal triggered by the stimulation of those other body parts is more psychological rather than actually physical as is the case of female breasts which are sexually wired to the brain as I've previously mentioned.

Men have evolved exactly to find women's breast attractive and I doubt that attraction would go away simply by taking away the social taboo. Men are instinctively attracted not just to womens breasts but to large breasts in particular because it is a sign of fertility. It has nothing to do with "oversexualization." It's just evolutionary biology. The moment men don't find a woman's breasts arousing anymore is the moment they also lose their attraction and arousal at the mere sight of a vagina.

I don't know how I would feel about this. Men can be pigs and it can lead to bad things...

because boobs are seen as sexual and men are dogs and it will only lead to bad things the only reason it's set up is because it protects women

but I believe if you want to go around not wearing a bra and even post pictures topless on instagram then you should be able to, but it should not be considered normal.

#FreeThePenis

Women do NOT want to free their nipples. Maybe they would in a perfect world where everyone had perky breasts like Rihanna but the reality is most women don't. A big + of using a bra is it makes breasts look better than they actually are. It's just like make-up.

They also do not want their breasts to lose their super effectiveness on guys' dicks since it's one of their most beloved secret weapons to manipulate their boyfriends' poor minds.Take a look at some African tribes where being topless is the norm for women. Their men are used to seeing their breasts since birth, they don't have the magical effects they have on men in most places of the world.

I hope my post won't trigger your feminist side. I think nipple censorship in movies and other media is very unnecessary most of the time but women cover their breasts for a reason in real life.

i never understood it tbh.. free hanging boob with the nipple covered is not censored, but if the littlest nipple is showing it gets censored!

who even came up with this rule?!