First of all, if what you do with a girl's nipples gives her the same amount of pleasure as what you do with either her vagina or clitoris, you're doing something wrong. Some girls have more sensitive nipples and breast tissue than others, yeah, but the clitoris literally contains thousands of nerve endings and is the single most sensitive organ to touch in the human body, man or woman. They are not equal in that way. And CA, I don't care what kind of personal experience you have had with your wife. They are just not.
Second of all, swollen breasts are a sign of sexual receptivity. That is no different than saying that a fatter girth after a feast or whatever is a sign of having eaten well. Since females are effectively always sexually receptive from maturity onwards, their breasts remain that way, while your stomach naturally shrinks back down to size once the food is digested and passed.
The fact of the matter is that the censorship of the female nipple and breast is plain old sexism.
You have been saying that men have chests and women have breasts. You're not wrong, obviously. You wouldn't be wrong either to say that both breasts and chests vary, breasts more-so than chests. However, as I am sure you are aware, many breasts are not large. Some of them are so small that we call them "flat-chested" - we actually use the word "chest" to describe their breasts because their breasts are so small that they are simply unapparent, thus, non-feminine. A lot of these women end up undergoing breast enhancement. Likewise, many male chests are more breast-like than others. In fact, there's a common procedure (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/03/06/while-the-women-are-enhancing-the-men-are-reducing/) where men undergo a surgery to reduce their chests. I don't think the pictures there are very representative (and I don't think any of them actually changed much), but the point stands that chests and breasts can naturally look incredibly similar and that a number of people whose chests or breasts don't quite look right to us undergo an operation to meet our norms.
Another case I find interesting is women with breast cancer. Often times, these women have their breasts removed in order to prevent the cancer from having the chance to spread throughout their body. My mother underwent that operation. My older sister did the same when she began to identify as nongendered. It isn't uncommon for younger girls whose families, like mine, have a history of breast cancer to have their breasts removed before the threat ever arises. Yet these women and anyone born a woman who began to identify as nongendered without actually undergoing full gender therapy -- who physically *do not have breasts* -- are not allowed to take their shirts off publicly.
Here's another fun one.
http://testdb.msmagazine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ANDREJ-PEJIC-DOSSIER.jpg
This is a magazine cover from 2011. The model on the cover is Andrej Pejic, a male model. He is caked in makeup, as you can certainly tell, worn predominantly by women, and his hair is styled in a typically feminine fashion. He's taking his shirt off his back. Big deal, a guy taking his shirt off.
Barnes & Noble and Borders both labeled this magazine as pornographic by bagging it, meaning that only the title of the magazine was visible on the shelves and that the magazine itself was packaged in an opaque material. They ordered it this way from Dossier.
Like I said, this is a male model taking his shirt off. The same thing can be seen on countless other magazine covers. This one, though, is labeled pornographic because it blurs the gender lines, and unless you know who the model is, it's not immediately apparent whether or not this is a man caked in makeup or a woman with small breasts.
I thought this excerpt from a Huff Post article on this magazine was interesting.
__
We spoke with Dossier Co-Founder and Creative Director Skye Parrott who explained that the bookstores asked for all copies of the magazine to be placed in "opaque poly bags because even though they knew Andrej was a man, he looked too much like a woman, basically," a move that she suspects will limit sales, but that's not really the issue here.
"It's a naked man on the cover of a magazine, which is done all of the time without being covered up, so I definitely don't think it merits this, but I understand what it is," Parrott told HuffPost Style. "It's not a coincidence that it's only the giant U.S. chain stores that are asking us to do this....It's only the American copies that are being censored. It seems that it probably made people uncomfortable. But that's part of what's interesting about the cover, I think, is that it's playing with those ideas of gender roles. He's topless, you can see that he's a man, but if you look at his face, he looks like a woman and he's so beautiful, he's both in that picture, in a way. I think that's what's interesting about it."
__
I found it funny that she said the only companies that had an issue with the cover were the American companies. That's not surprising to me.
Here's the bottom line - women's bodies are targeted by laws preventing them from exposing their breasts publicly, no matter how much or little breast they actually have. Men, on the other hand, can be as "breasty" (as a friend of mine put it once) as they want, and yet, they're still allowed to show it off. Unless, of course, they are made up like Pejic was on that magazine cover. That magazine cover demonstrated that a man can take his shirt off publicly, but once his gender becomes ambiguous, it is all of a sudden labeled obscene even by people who know that this is a picture of a man. That cover showed that if a man makes himself up to look feminine enough, he automatically becomes "obscene" in the same way that we see women's breasts.
)
Westeros Diplomacy
)
)
)