I didn't know this, but you recognised what i meant and attacked anyway. besides, from the perspective of someone who has not participated in or seen the results of a male breast dissection, which would be those who generally make up 'society' males do not have breasts.

What you are trying to say is that men do not have mammary glands and the associated fat deposits. There is nothing sexual about those. The existence of breasts and breast muscles is not, and is found in both sexes. The fact that society is ignorant of this is the cause of the double standard, not a defense of it.

You are pointing to a THIRD double standard

please tell me what you think a double standard is

Double Standard: a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double%20standard

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/double-standard

The first double standard in question was obviously that male nipples are not censored while female nipples are.

The second, which you used to defend it, is the hypothetical of one set of genitalia being censored while another isn't.

The third double standard your attempt to render breasts, something existent in both genders, unequal, which seemed to have been predicated on your previous adherence to the double standard applied to nipples and the sexualization that has resulted from it (It is sexaulized, therefore we should censor it because it is sexual, essentially).

effect->cause? don't think so

That does not make sense. I am saying the cause led to the effect. That because of the sexualization, people derive pleasure from said things. In societies without serialized female breasts, you do not find the same obsession and sexual pleasure derived from them.