I learned about Anni Ma from YOMYOMF. Anni is a feminist who works to “free the nipple;” she goes around without a shirt to protest the double-standard in society where men can go shirtless but women can’t. See her interview above. In the interview, she talks about the double standard: how men can go shirtless without shame. She talks about how she wants to show the world how regular boobies are just as good as boobies you see in the movies that don’t have tanlines or stretch-marks (she actually raises a good point–how do they avoid tanlines in the movies?).

I think she raises some good points, but honestly, I wonder how practical it is in real life. As I watch the video above, from a personal male perspective, it’s not really a turn-on. It’s almost clinical to watch, a woman protesting with her body and talking to a cop. I watch it almost like a doctor trying to diagnose a disease, in this case a possible social disease. But if I or any other male saw an attractive, young, naked woman outside in real life, I wonder if the visuals, combined with other senses like smell and touch, would be distracting. I think women usually build up their attraction from an emotional standpoint. It’s different with men, who are more visual. If this were the norm, it would be hard to get anything done. (The frequent female complaint of “My eyes are up here” would become a lot more common.)

People may offer the idea that in some societies, women cover everything with a burqa for similar reasons–not to distract men. But I think that’s more of a social custom regarding gender roles than a preventative measure to curb arousal. I don’t think most men from those societies get turned on my simply seeing a woman’s arm.

This one’s a hard call. I can’t see any legal reason to stop women from going topless, but at the same time, I think it would be distracting. For example, I went running without a shirt this week. Guys run without shirts all the time, and yes, it feels liberating. I don’t know see a legal reason why women shouldn’t be able to do the same, but at the same time, I can see car accidents and all sorts of other problems happening if topless women were running and sweating mid-day throughout the city.

So I don’t have a good opinion on this, but if you do, sound off like a WOWO below.

22 thoughts on “Boobies

  1. This would be my example of ridiculous Liberal causes…

    On the other hand… BOOBIES!

  2. What’s there to be excited about? Free nipple and nude activism is all about desexualising the human body. I.e. instead of tackling head on the programmed discomfort people have over sex, they just want to psychologically neuter your instinct so that women can feel “safer”.

  3. “I don’t think most men from those societies get turned on my simply seeing a woman’s arm. – See more at:

    The Madonna vs Whore complex is so strong in these societies, as well as sexual guilting and shaming, that significant numbers of men are programmed to go for male and female children as acceptable sexual surrogates.

  4. “desexualising the human body…

    Does that mean that we stop seeing the human body as sexual? Because I would be solidly against that for obvious reasons.

  5. King,

    I think we can all make an exception and not be too harsh against the ridiculousness of this liberal cause because…BOOBIES!

  6. “Does that mean that we stop seeing the human body as sexual? Because I would be solidly against that for obvious reasons. – See more at:

    But it’s interesting to look at it from their point of view. Beyond the doctrines such as “fetishizing gaze” used by the Special Victims, they have a point about how the sight of erogenous zones (including mammaries) evoke sexual desires in men that arises completely independent of the female’s own arousal or consent. And that can be discomfiting if it leads to unwanted attention from unwanted men. It can lead to harassment, stalking, and crimes against the person. So perhaps they think that by de-sexualizing the mammaries so that it evokes absolutely no desire at all in men who look at it, they will regain control over this aspect of their lives, of living under constant sexual threat, of having their freedom constrained and curtailed by it.

    But I think the paradox is that the human body is obviously sexual. The taboo against breasts and going bottomless is actually a reaction against the erect penis, which is constrained with an even higher degree of taboo, enforced with potential violence, than against bare women.

    Listening to male nudist lifestylers talking about how they handle erections is just plain embarrassing to the human race. They don’t know how to handle spontaneous erections when interacting with people they find attractive other than excusing themselves or wiping off their precum with their towel and shit like that. Christ! If this were such a big deal, at least we clothed people have trousers so we don’t have to make like a tree and leave.

    Don’t ask me where I am going with this. I obviously would not feel comfortable at all standing next to a naked guy with a raging hard on who is staring at me. I have also been given unwanted sexual attention by women and it can certainly be uncomfortable, although it has not gone to extremes. I have merely braindumped my ponderous pontifications here all over the subject.

    Is this too much info?

    “You guys are not thinking it through. The good comes with the bad, and some images cannot be erases from the mind’s eye. – See more at:

    The after-effects of the Asian Tsunami lingers in my mind’s eye. Bloaters, corpses whose features are still recognizable, twisted, mouths and eyes gaping “O”‘s, fixed like pale statues due to rigor mortis, clothes torn off by the power of the deadly wave.

    At least these naked people are still alive, and they take simple pleasure in being clothes free. Can you imagine that? They are happy just to take off their clothes, instead of buying the next iphone or the newest handbag and shoes. I take some comfort in this even when beholding their less than aesthetic physiques, when compared to all the dead people from the tsunami.

  7. Oh boy, if I can keep this up, I will become good enough to write for Guillermo del Toro

  8. This just makes me think of tribal societies where women are topless, and men don’t seem to bat an eye.

  9. The next thing we know men ‘s groups are going to want to walk around with their penises waving around.

  10. The reasoning of the “free the nipple” movement is just flawed. It presupposes that in order for there to be justice that males and females must be treated identically in society, having the same roles and holding the exact same expectations and conventions. This is a simplistic notion and unscientific notion,

    Secondly, clothes are really a kindness to all of us. As John Doe implies, MOST of the the human bodies walking around would do more to turn our collective stomachs than to “free” us in any way by exposing them. The other extreme is a society where the human body becomes merely clinical—a lump of meat and sinew where familiarity breeds contempt or at least indifference.

    And finally, Liberals have got to drop this christophobic claptrap that putting on clothes is some kind of Victorian, Puritan, or Abrahamic convention imposed upon the rest of the world. When you look at the world population NOBODY in any advanced human civilization walked around naked on the streets, as a rule.

    Not the Japanese

    Not the Aztecs

    Not the Egyptians

    Sure, there were times when they had limited nudity, but as a rule, civilizations around the world developed clothing and tit had nothing to do with the Puritans the Victorians .or Jerry Falwell. These tired old claims are pure drivel.

  11. There probably is some puritan influence in some areas of life. I remember going to the onsen in Japan, and I was told that women and men bathed topless together. They were right–but all the young women had their own separate area, and the only woman who bathed with the men was around 100 years old! I was told that the co-mingled baths was a thing of the past; they separated the genders because of religion when the Westerners came, and these days, only the very old women went in with the men.

    Maybe Anni Ma is bringing us back to our Asian roots…although I don’t think we’ve ever gone naked in total public. Maybe she’s bringing us PAST our Asian roots! 🙂

  12. If you do a google image search for “naked women national geographic,” there are many interesting photos of people. Turn safesearch off.

  13. A hundred years ago, going topless was the norm for women in Japan, China, Thailand. These were women who worked the fields in the sun while carrying infants on their backs and suckling them in full public view.

    A hundred years later, and even the act of suckling your own child in public has become controversial in the “Western” countries, what more the conquered ones, where clothing was imposed by the threat of punishment.

    The necessity of clothing in “advanced” civilisation may be nothing more than the equivalent of Bisphenol-A and heavy metals proliferation in the food chain, a by-product and side effect of “advancement”, with zero conscious mind driving it.

    The question of clothing is very interesting. As much as people talk about other people’s saggy bodies, as much as they talk about cultural norms and rules, it is not so openly admitted that the primary driver of wearing clothes is a person’s own fear of being without it. Who here hasn’t had a dream where you were suddenly buck naked in public and then suffered chronic anxiety? You can put a person in a place where the components of public norms and views of nudity are no longer hostile, such as in total isolation where the nearest human being is a hundred kilometres away, or in a place where everybody else is nude, and the chances are high that the person would still opt to wear clothes.

    Perhaps the reason is that clothing has become a marker of identity and a part of the concept of the physical self. People feel psychologically naked and vulnerable without it, as if the clothing is a shield to protect them from an ingrained source of anxiety and shame. Then the clothing becomes a signifier of group affiliation, and once again people feel vulnerable without group affiliation.

    There is a tribe somewhere in South America where the women wear – to my eyes – the kinkiest G-string ever. It’s literally a string that runs around their waist and snugly thru their cracks, held together by a wooden clasp. That is clothing for them. You take that away from them, and they feel just as naked as us if were were stripped from our overcoats and trousers and undergarments and paraded thru a football field. In tribal societies, men and women can be buck naked with all their parts plainly visible, but they walk and talk as if they were not, and they have other items of “clothing” on them, such as ritual scars, body paint, adornments etc. These items substitute for them “clothing”, without which they would feel the anxiety you feel if you were suddenly naked in high school.

    Nudity and nakedness is a psychological thing. Even the cultural norms are not composed of rules set in stone or with any rational or logical coherence.

  14. “A hundred years ago, going topless was the norm for women in Japan, China, Thailand.”

    Are you saying that if I got into a time machine and went back 100 years to 1916 and walked down the streets of Tokyo or Beijing that it would be normal for me to find the women trapping down the streets topless?

    Of are you saying that one peasants in the field might have been topless?

  15. My timeline may not be correct for Japan either because I forgot about the Meiji Restoration

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *