To The Daily Sun,
Kia Sinclair's letter in The Daily Sun really stimulated my apparently erroneous concept of female anatomy. Keeping abreast of all the rapid changes regarding our sexuality in this country today has me flummoxed. Chelsea Handler sent an Instragram of she and Vladimir Putin both topless on horses to prove that she has a better body. I wholeheartedly agree with her, but don't think she needed to go that far to prove her point.
Feminists want to know why nourishing little nipples have been taboo-tyrannized? Why in this age of gender equality should those nipples be censored from the public square or anywhere that men are allowed to expose their nipples?
Kia asks the question, "Men go topless because they want to and many times for comfort. Why is it not the same for women?" You may call me a boob, but isn't the female breast, to which those nipples are attached to, a sexual part in a way that a man's is not? Kia goes on to say, "Breasts are for babies and children, not men or lovers." I have always been under the impression that they served both purposes magnificently.
Are today's feminists actually trying to insinuate that the bodies of men and women are analogous or somehow amorphous? Are they saying that the naked truth is, men should not look at women in a sexual way because that somehow is akin to "taking away the breast from the woman and the babies for your own sexual pleasures"? Kia laments about men having to keep their shirts on before 1936. But didn't that have to do more with sartorial etiquette, rather than being titillatingly offensive?
Perhaps I am being prudish, but being present at Hampton Beach a few weeks ago when women were parading around topless made me uncomfortable. It was not because I find the female breast offensive. It was because I was there with my two grandchildren and their three friends. I'm sorry, but my grandchildren are inundated with sexuality everywhere they go today and our family outing was ready for the bikinis, but not for this distraction. My granddaughter rather succinctly pointed out that pretending that there is no difference between the naked breasts of women and men is ridiculous.
I hope the feminists do not decide to go back to the movement where they did not shave their legs or underarms because men do not have to. Or continue to marginalize men as did either Gloria Steinem or Flo Kennedy who asserted, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
I have never met a man who felt he needed to deny that breasts serve a wonderful function for the nurturing of little children in order to be able to admire the unique attributes of the female body. So I don't know why Kia felt the need to make that insinuation. I am a man, not some gender-challenged phrase, "cis-man" — a person who just happens to identify as a man. A man who has always been attracted to the female breast. Or as someone once lyrically phrased it, "Mammaries light the corners of my mind." I'm just not sure I want them bouncing around and lighting the corners of little children's minds in the public square. I suppose it is possible one can color me square.
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 825