Should women be able to go shirtless?

[Ladyhawk]

Bare chests on men aren't considered obscene. Why should it be different for women? Why shouldn't we be able to go bare-chested on the beach when it hits 95 degrees? How come we can get a ticket and you guys don't? Besides, if it were made legal and socially acceptable, maybe men wouldn't make such a big deal out of it anymore. At first, it would be new. But, the novelty would eventually wear off.

What do you think?

[Suezoled]

how about just making men cover up?

[El Greco]

Yes. Of course. They should. Most definitely. No doubt. Do it. Now.

[DanishDynamite]

Women do go bare chested in a fair number of "primitive" societies. There is no a priori reason why they shouldn't do so in all societies.

And Ladyhawk, if you visit Denmark you can go bare chested on any beach you wish.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And Ladyhawk, if you visit Denmark you can go bare chested on any beach you wish.

But of course, nobody ever does that because in Denmark it is f**king cold :D

[DanishDynamite]

El Greco:But of course, nobody ever does that because in Denmark it is f**king cold :D Only during 8 months of the year. :)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
El Greco:Only during 8 months of the year.

Yes, but during the other 4 months your women are here in Greece :D

[Chanileslie]

Shirtless, clotheless, it doesn't matter. It should be up to a person's choice what they want or don't want to show. It is just flesh for crying outloud.

[rustypouch]

Move to Ontario.

Women are allowed to go topless there.

[kittynh]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Women do go bare chested in a fair number of "primitive" societies. There is no a priori reason why they shouldn't do so in all societies.

And Ladyhawk, if you visit Denmark you can go bare chested on any beach you wish. \\


I know women sunbath topless in the parks in almost any European nation. I'm just wondering if anyplace would allow a woman to go topless downtown, or picking their kids up from school? It's considered pretty tacky when a guy does those activities topless, but they do it.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
At first, it would be new. But, the novelty would eventually wear off.


Fool.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Move to Ontario.

Women are allowed to go topless there.


And yet, none of us does.

[Zep]

Result of a Google search (http://www.topfreedom.com/austgen.html). It's "comon practice" here and the general attitude is "So what!".

[Ove]

It's "comon practice" here and the general attitude is "So what!".

Which is precisely the attitude over here. Most Europeans are STUNNED over the hullabaloo caused by Janet Jacksons bare breast, i mean the same event had a lot of 16-20 year old girls running around in in very revealing dresses (best described by the Groucho quote "That's a nice little piece of nothing you're allmost not carrying") and making suggestive moves to the audience and yet Janet's silicone pumped breast gets all the attention.

Most women go shirtless over here at beaches and in parks during summer and really "What's the big deal"? It IS nice to look at.;)

[El Greco]

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I proudly present you Captain Barefoot's Naturist Guide to the Greek Islands (http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/1794/greekgde.html).

For all your top- & bottomless needs.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Bare chests on men aren't considered obscene. Why should it be different for women?Maybe men get turned on by bare-chested women more than women do by bare-chested men. I don't know if that's true, but it seems fairly likely.Why shouldn't we be able to go bare-chested on the beach when it hits 95 degrees? How come we can get a ticket and you guys don't?No good reason that I can think of. Getting turned on by a bare-chested women could sometimes be an inconvenient distraction, like if I were trying to concentrate on a difficult problem at work or something, but generally it's rather pleasant :D and I can't see why it would be a big problem at the beach.Besides, if it were made legal and socially acceptable, maybe men wouldn't make such a big deal out of it anymore. At first, it would be new. But, the novelty would eventually wear off.What do you mean by "make a big deal"? Make rude comments? Stare? Want to stare, even though they don't out of politeness? I'm not sure the last would ever go away.

In any case, do you really want the novelty to wear off? Don't women like having the ability to attract men's attention? Is attracting men's attention an entirely unintended consequence of wearing makeup, perfume, uncomfortable-looking high heels, etc.?

I don't understand women.

Yeah, I know. Women don't understand men, either. We're even, I guess. :D

[Sanamas]

I'm astounded by how prudish the US is when it comes to nipples. I can see no harm in allowing women to go topless, it's something that wouldn't make any sort of a difference, once the initial shock wore off.

[bjornart]

Certainly

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by kittynh


I know women sunbath topless in the parks in almost any European nation. I'm just wondering if anyplace would allow a woman to go topless downtown, or picking their kids up from school? It's considered pretty tacky when a guy does those activities topless, but they do it.

This is how most of us go to the beach here, topless. But in Greece in Archaeological sites and museums, men and women are not aloud to wander around topless or wearing their bathing suits. The city of Venice forbids topless men or women in bikini walking on the streets either and I am very pro of this measure, I wish that the Mayor of Athens forbid to the the tourists to walk around the city topless or in the top of their bikini.

[shemp]

I am declaring my house to be a "female top-free zone" and I invite all skepchicks over here to express their freedom!

OWW! Mrs. Shemp! Put down that broom! OWWWWW!!!

[bug_girl]

cripes, yes. i work outside all summer, and while i can't go without a bra, i definately wish i could take my shirt off. i tried once when i lived in the city, and was asked to cover up.
and when swimming, i so wish i didn't have to bother with a suit.
i don't know why americans are so prudish, but i wish it would stop. (it won't, of course :()

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by bug_girl
cripes, yes. i work outside all summer, and while i can't go without a bra, i definately wish i could take my shirt off. i tried once when i lived in the city, and was asked to cover up.
and when swimming, i so wish i didn't have to bother with a suit.
i don't know why americans are so prudish, but i wish it would stop. (it won't, of course :()

Bug_girl I don't know where this "out" is but in Middle East that is really hot everybody is covered up with clothes during summer, we don't get our clothes off. For three summers I participated in an archaeological excavation and the British went nude and they were pale like milk and I the dark-pot was covered with white clothes and with shirts with long-long sleeves and a scarf around my neck. It's very dangerous to work under the sun naked or semi-naked.

[scarlet_35]

I don't know about anyone else but I've seen some men that REALLY shouldn't take their shirts off, ewwwww

and the same would go for some women who wear biniki's that really REALLY shouldn't. Although I admire their courage, I still don't want to see it.

[sackett]

Originally posted by scarlet_35
I don't know about anyone else but I've seen some men that REALLY shouldn't take their shirts off, ewwwww

and the same would go for some women who wear biniki's that really REALLY shouldn't. Although I admire their courage, I still don't want to see it.

There you've put your finger on it: Most people go covered up for good reasons, esthetic reasons that are hard to get around.

"Put you finger on it" is a well-worn figure of speech. It has ONE accepted meaning and no other. Shame on all of you for your vulgar minds.

[rachaella]

Here in NY it is perfectly legal for women to go topless anywhere men can. Here where I live, in Rochester, NY seven women kept getting arrested for going topless ("the topless seven") until the high courts decided that women should have the right to be topless too. Though it doesn't seem to get taken advantage of too much, one particular event I recall is about 9 years or so ago when there was some small-scale bungy jumping going on at the beach and one woman did it topless, and she was a well-endowed gal. All I can say is owwwwww!

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Bug_girl I don't know where this "out" is but in Middle East that is really hot everybody is covered up with clothes during summer, we don't get our clothes off. For three summers I participated in an archaeological excavation and the British went nude and they were pale like milk and I the dark-pot was covered with white clothes and with shirts with long-long sleeves and a scarf around my neck. It's very dangerous to work under the sun naked or semi-naked.

i agree with you, especially since i am a very pale pasty person, which is why i am only out very early in the morning or at dusk w/out clothing.
well, you know what i mean :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by bug_girl


i agree with you, especially since i am a very pale pasty person, which is why i am only out very early in the morning or at dusk w/out clothing.
well, you know what i mean :)

If am not wrong you have to be out early anyway if you want to find bugs, right? In that case there is nothing better than going out early in the morning with the fewest clothes possible!!

[Mercutio]

*ahem* (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6107/USA/Maine/Aug1498BanNews.html)

(link to the world-famous topless lawn mower of Maine...ok, just a story about her)

[Schizobunny]

Of course they should be allowed to go bare chested. To not let women have the same rights as men simply because they are women is sexist and wrong. It is unfair that men go shirtless without so much of a comment, but women go shirtless and it is a whole other story. I also feel that it is sexist that it is socially acceptable for women to wear men's clothing, but not for men to wear woman's clothing.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by 69dodge

In any case, do you really want the novelty to wear off? Don't women like having the ability to attract men's attention? Is attracting men's attention an entirely unintended consequence of wearing makeup, perfume, uncomfortable-looking high heels, etc.?

I don't understand women.

Yeah, I know. Women don't understand men, either. We're even, I guess. :D


In answer to your questions, I for one would definitely say YES, I want the novelty to wear off. Absolutely. Men place too much emphasis on the size of a woman's rack. Maybe once women were permitted to go topless, they'd realize how dreamt up those Sports Illustrated and Playboy models are.

Not sure I get your 2nd question, 69. Whether we went topless or not, the attraction game would still be played by both sides, would it not?

I should also clarify that I don't think men or women should be going around nude everyplace. There are some health issue to consider there. I'm just saying that it would sure be nice if, while I was in my yard on a hot summer day, or at a friend's , that I could go topless without fear of being reported to the police. A man wouldn't be and I shouldn't be. Besides, I don't have that much to offend with :D

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Cain


Fool.

Maybe. But, if you look at some of the other posts here from other countries where women are permitted to go nude on the beach, it seems the novelty has worn off somewhat.

I can only go by their posts and since several of them are women, all saying the same thing, I tend to believe them.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Ove


Most women go shirtless over here at beaches and in parks during summer and really "What's the big deal"? It IS nice to look at.;)

Ove, have there been any problems with this policy? That is, have any women been assaulted or harassed due to being topless? I only ask because I have some friends who think that women going topless on beaches, etc., will provoke rape, ininvited approaches and other assaults. Am I wrong to say that's nonsense?

[DanishDynamite]

Ladyhawk:Ove, have there been any problems with this policy? That is, have any women been assaulted or harassed due to being topless? I only ask because I have some friends who think that women going topless on beaches, etc., will provoke rape, ininvited approaches and other assaults. Am I wrong to say that's nonsense? I suspect the opposite is true. I just googled a bit and according to this site: (http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php) The United States has the highest rape rate among countries which report such statistics. It is 4 times higher than that of Germany, 13 times higher than that of England and 20 times higher than that of Japan.
....
The rape rate in the US in 1998 was 34.4 per 100,000 persons. According to Statistikbanken.dk (http://www.statistikbanken.dk/STRAF4) (sorry, in Danish) the rape rate in Denmark works out to be about 4.5 per 100,000 in 2002. However, I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "rape rate" in the first link, so if one includes all types of sexual assualt in the Danish statistic, the rape rate in Denmark becomes about 10,5 per 100,000. This is still 3 times less than that of the US.

So, to sum up: Americans are sexually repressed. :D

[Ladyhawk]

Thanks for the info, DD!

I guess it would go to follow that if such crimes as rape were on the rise in countries that are more liberal about this kind of thing, then those countries wouldn't be as liberal about this kind of thing.

I know you were kidding but, while I don't think Americans are more sexually repressed, I think they tend to be more sexually obsessed... ;)

[MLynn]

Originally posted by shemp
I am declaring my house to be a "female top-free zone" and I invite all skepchicks over here to express their freedom!

OWW! Mrs. Shemp! Put down that broom! OWWWWW!!!
Yes, we have liberty...

[mjv]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


What do you think?


Women should be able to go shirtless, but only the good looking ones.

I'm not kidding. and yes that goes for men too.

If you are flabby and out of shape, do us all a favor and keep your shirt on.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ladyhawk:I suspect the opposite is true. I just googled a bit and according to this site: (http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php) According to Statistikbanken.dk (http://www.statistikbanken.dk/STRAF4) (sorry, in Danish) the rape rate in Denmark works out to be about 4.5 per 100,000 in 2002. However, I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "rape rate" in the first link, so if one includes all types of sexual assualt in the Danish statistic, the rape rate in Denmark becomes about 10,5 per 100,000. This is still 3 times less than that of the US.

So, to sum up: Americans are sexually repressed. :D

Just a question about the rape statistic in the US. I know this is way off topic, but I wonder if that statistic includes rape reportings from "repressed memories", in which case the whether or not these rapes are real or imaginary is a serious question. I know that since the repressed memory phenomenon has come about it is said that 1 in 3 American women has been sexually molested in their childhood. This to me sounds a wee bit overboard. Have repressed memories really taken off in other countries or is this mostly an American phenomenon?

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by rachaella


Just a question about the rape statistic in the US. I know this is way off topic, but I wonder if that statistic includes rape reportings from "repressed memories", in which case the whether or not these rapes are real or imaginary is a serious question. I know that since the repressed memory phenomenon has come about it is said that 1 in 3 American women has been sexually molested in their childhood. This to me sounds a wee bit overboard. Have repressed memories really taken off in other countries or is this mostly an American phenomenon?

Good point. Although, I'd have to believe that, even if the # of rapes associated with 'repressed memory' were included, it would make up a smaller percentage of the whole. As for female children being molested, I believe it's probably under-reported...for obvious reasons...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by rachaella
I know that since the repressed memory phenomenon has come about it is said that 1 in 3 American women has been sexually molested in their childhood. This to me sounds a wee bit overboard.

Shermer, refers to that. He has a whole chapter in "Why people believe in weird things" where he debunks the theory of supressed memories.

Have repressed memories really taken off in other countries or is this mostly an American phenomenon?

In Greece where I practice Law no but we have observed recently a different trend. People that are divorcing are accussing each other for molesting the kids and the most sad is that there are psychologists who testify lies.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Shermer, refers to that. He has a whole chapter in "Why people believe in weird things" where he debunks the theory of supressed memories.


Yeah, that is one of my all-time favorite books. His chapter really delves into the whole repressed memories of satanic cult craze that really took off in the 80s and early 90s which then seemed to lose some of its satanic components later but retain the "memories" of abuse. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus has a really good book on that subject, The Myth of Repressed Memories: False memories And Allegations of Sexual Abuse . It details some of the heart wrenching tales of people who have been accused of these horrible things and discusses the truly malleable quality of the human memory.

[bug_girl]

Originally posted by rachaella
I know this is way off topic, but I wonder if that statistic includes rape reportings from "repressed memories", in which case the whether or not these rapes are real or imaginary is a serious question. I know that since the repressed memory phenomenon has come about it is said that 1 in 3 American women has been sexually molested in their childhood. This to me sounds a wee bit overboard.

there are ~25,000 child rapes reported/year, with injury to the child. i have never heard the 1 in 3 statistic for *children.* it is claimed for adult women, by extrapolation from reported rapes. (since most rapes go unreported.)
there also is college data: "1 out of every 5 college age women report being forced to have sexual intercourse."--1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey"
More recently for college, from Justice Dept. "Based on the study findings, it is estimated that more than 350 rapes per year may occur on a campus with a population of 10,000 female students." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/182369.htm

I'd say that "statistic" you heard is from overzealous folks, rather than recovered memories. but it's still depressing.

[BigShoeStu]

I'm an American male and I grew up in the warm State of Arizona, where I still reside, and I was a member of a nudist resort here tucked into the desert. Myself and my parents went for several years while I was age 10 to about 13. We went about every other weekend for a day looking at bare breasts (among everything else) and to me at that age . . . . Well, I thought I was in sexual heaven. Though, after only several more visits to "heaven", the novelty of nudity DID wear off and I was able to look at everybody as people that were simply not wearing clothes rather than how it first felt - Very sexual. It just became a place to go meet the friends you made and swim, play volleyball or whatever, just like any other "members only" resort.

My point being, I have first hand experience that the novelty DOES wear off. And it happened to me while I was suffering through puberty! When the slightest breeze would get me going! Casual nudity became natural to me. Not sexual. Looking at completely naked women (some beautiful, some not) was the same to me (and still is at age 32) as seeing anybody at the mall window-shopping.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by bug_girl


there are ~25,000 child rapes reported/year, with injury to the child. i have never heard the 1 in 3 statistic for *children.* it is claimed for adult women, by extrapolation from reported rapes. (since most rapes go unreported.)
there also is college data: "1 out of every 5 college age women report being forced to have sexual intercourse."--1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey"
More recently for college, from Justice Dept. "Based on the study findings, it is estimated that more than 350 rapes per year may occur on a campus with a population of 10,000 female students." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/182369.htm

I'd say that "statistic" you heard is from overzealous folks, rather than recovered memories. but it's still depressing.

I do have my textbook from my Psychology of Sexuality class that states: "Various surveys indicate that the number of girls victimized (by sexual molestation) ranges from 20-33%" Probably on the high end includes estimates from the repressed memories nuts and the low end sounds more reasonable to me. 20% is still very depressing indeed.

[Flame]

I used to go nude in my house (before I married Graham and had kids ;) ) all the time. Seriously, I would answer the door nude, have visitors while I was 'in the buff' and so on.

Granted part of this was that I thoroughly enjoyed the shock value part of it, but also, I felt comfortable.

During the same part of my life I used to visit a nude beach called 'wreck beach' in Vancouver (BC)

At one point (there's been many others though) I went to go down the 'steps' one day and there was a big thing going on because a girl had been raped and murdered when leaving the beach...
People questioned whether it was right to have a nude beach, considering the fact that women were being assaulted and that murder(s) had happened.

That's total bollox! I really feel that these sickos would be doing this whether there were nude people walking around or not!
I don't buy that seeing a womans boobs causes someone to flip out and become a sick sexual offender.



Women should be able to go topless (should they choose to).

[scarlet_35]

Originally posted by Flame

That's total bollox! I really feel that these sickos would be doing this whether there were nude people walking around or not!
I don't buy that seeing a womans boobs causes someone to flip out and become a sick sexual offender.



Women should be able to go topless (should they choose to).

well maybe not a sick sexual offender but just imagine the look on a 16 year old boys face seeing a women walking around topless :D I'm sure the teen boys wouldn't complain

[Sundog]

Originally posted by BigShoeStu
Though, after only several more visits to "heaven", the novelty of nudity DID wear off and I was able to look at everybody as people that were simply not wearing clothes rather than how it first felt - Very sexual.

I'm torn. Part of me says, of course women should be able to do this. But I enjoy the feeling I get looking at a naked woman. I don't want to become desensitized to it! When the sight of a beautiful woman's breasts no longer causes a strong reaction in me, it's time to bury me.

[BigShoeStu]

Originally posted by Sundog


I'm torn. Part of me says, of course women should be able to do this. But I enjoy the feeling I get looking at a naked woman. I don't want to become desensitized to it! When the sight of a beautiful woman's breasts no longer causes a strong reaction in me, it's time to bury me.
I may need to make myself a little more clear on this point. If I were to go to a nudist resort or a nude beach, I can certainly see and appreciate the beauty of breasts. Funny enough, I am most definitely a "Breast Man". I stare when I see a girl with a nice set that is dressed provocitively. I can get aroused at a titty-bar . . . or to be PC, a Breast Lounge. Breats take on a whole new meaning to me when the barer of the breasts is acting or displaying them in a "sexual" manner. But when women are being non-sexual, breasts may be nice to look at (and I do look), but do not have the shock value as they would now if I saw a woman at a park sunbathing with exposed breasts being non-sexual.

[Ladyhawk]

See, Sundog? Nothing to worry about ;)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
See, Sundog? Nothing to worry about ;)

Whew, what a relief. OK ladies, off with the tops. You can PM me with a photo to prove your commitment.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by rachaella
Here in NY it is perfectly legal for women to go topless anywhere men can. Here where I live, in Rochester, NY seven women kept getting arrested for going topless ("the topless seven") until the high courts decided that women should have the right to be topless too. Though it doesn't seem to get taken advantage of too much, one particular event I recall is about 9 years or so ago when there was some small-scale bungy jumping going on at the beach and one woman did it topless, and she was a well-endowed gal. All I can say is owwwwww!

I think the law states that women may go topless in state parks just as men may. However, I am quite certain any woman playing frisbee topless in a local park or swimming topless in a public pool would quickly be arrested - or even sunbathing topless in her backyard. Anybody with any sense knows the human body is utterly obscene and a woman's is even more so. Breasts, is there anything more disgusting. I'll take good old American blood and guts and severed limbs over healthy, living tissue any day of the week. You filthy perverts and your lack of outrage at unclothedness! I think we need another Constitutional amendment! Won't someone please think of the children! Shreak!

To be serious, as much as I love America, at least in principle, there are things I just really detest about it. The whole hysteria over sexuality is one of them. That hysteria is the source of the obsession over nudity.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by billydkid

To be serious, as much as I love America, at least in principle, there are things I just really detest about it. The whole hysteria over sexuality is one of them. That hysteria is the source of the obsession over nudity.

Agreed. A movie can have several dozen people die in various violent ways and still get by with a PG-13, but if you've got a set of boobs in there - oh watch out, don't take the kids to see that one! 'R' all the way!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker



And yet, none of us does.


Same reason as in Denmark? 8 months of the year it is cold?


I am all for choice; but I imagine that going topless for women would be restricted by weather; UV indexes might warrant caution too.

I am not sure if societies like Canada and the U.S. are mature enough to handle topless women outside of topless bars just yet. Heck, some people are just starting to get used to women trying their best to breast feed their babies in public. There was some noise about that a few years ago, but the vocal groups that were outraged at feeding in public places are not heard from as often now.

Nursing mother is told to cover (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11122003/utah/110303.asp)

Perhaps in North America, other jurisdictions will follow Ontario's example and allow women the choice of what they want to wear in public.


The essence of 'tolerance' is not that people have accepted or rejected a particular activity as good for themselves, but rather that they will accept that others be permitted to engage in the activity, notwithstanding their personal disapproval of it. (http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/lex/lex-12.htm)

Another interesting case (also in Ontario I believe, but I don't recall all the facts or whether it made it into the courts ) was the case of the 40 or 50 something women that wanted to participate in an open audition in a topless bar. They were denied and they claimed discrimination.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/index.html

Sad thing is, we do have to face up to some of the obvious perceptions of the human body and that men are very visual. The above link points out problems with pedophiles at nude beaches.

Then there is cooking, that is one area of the body I'd want covered.

How sensitive are you going to be if your chest is bare all the time too. And gravity is a darn beast.

Hmm, any market for transparent swimming tops for support?

Thus, I am torn on the subject.

In some places clothing is appropriate for men and women. In some places it might be fine if both men and women are nude.

It will still be up to the individual and their own comfort level in any situation.

I'm a bit prudish for a couple of reasons, not so much just because of the nudity. I have never been to a nude beach.

Who's to say that things wouldn't be different if people were nude all the time when around water? Some things do keep happening to spoil that scenario though. Humans are human.

I quite want to keep some areas away from wind and sun, and being such a whitey, I take cover in the summer most of the time anyway.

To each their own in their comfort levels. You are free to be nude all you want in your own home though. Indoor pools must be the most awesome things.

[Flame]

LOL Sorry, a bit OT but I love your new avatar Eos -

:D Ain't he cute? (evil, but cute ;) )

[Sundog]

Originally posted by rachaella


Agreed. A movie can have several dozen people die in various violent ways and still get by with a PG-13, but if you've got a set of boobs in there - oh watch out, don't take the kids to see that one! 'R' all the way!

There was a poem in an old underground newspaper from the 60's, don't remember which one. I don't know which is sadder, that it's still true after all these years, or that it would still be considered obscene after all these years. I don't remember it all, but it started:

Is it obscene to ****, or is it obscene to kill?
Is it more obscene to show two people *********** each other,
or killing each other?
Is it more obscene to show a picture of a naked woman,
just **********,
or to show the body of a woman
just killed?


You get the idea.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Flame
LOL Sorry, a bit OT but I love your new avatar Eos -

:D Ain't he cute? (evil, but cute ;) )


Now you're just encouraging me to keep the cute little sockinator. That's his name ;) He ain't evil, he's just disgusted with socks (see "killer pup" in humour threads) .:)

[Virgil]

Originally posted by mjv



Women should be able to go shirtless, but only the good looking ones.

I'm not kidding. and yes that goes for men too.

If you are flabby and out of shape, do us all a favor and keep your shirt on.



I agree (for men and women and old people too).

[Flame]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons



Now you're just encouraging me to keep the cute little sockinator. That's his name ;) He ain't evil, he's just disgusted with socks (see "killer pup" in humour threads) .:)

Do I have to go back and look at it even if I started the thread?

I'm a bit past it now, and I can always see the lad in your avatar ;)

T

[Outcast]

I agree, I wish America was less prudish when it come to sunbathing. I lived in Italy for three. The novelty of a topless beach wears off very quickly when you see women with mastectomies, 300 lb women and 80 year olds laying there topless. The same can be said when you see men walking around with their gut hanging down and covering their thong. I would not want see this walking down the street. Due to equal protection of the law, if you allow Miss Playmate of 2004 to walk topless, then you have to let her grandmother do the same

[The idea]

Let's not get carried away here by the idea of superficial equality. Women can take off their shirts, but shouldn't they refrain from removing their transparent plastic bras?

[ehobbs]

Originally posted by BigShoeStu
..... Looking at completely naked women (some beautiful, some not) was the same to me (and still is at age 32) as seeing anybody at the mall window-shopping.

How very sad for you....

[Soapy Sam]

Yes, of course, if they want to. Also to breastfeed in public, unless operating machinery, or standing in front of a man who is operating machinery.
But they should pass a physical first. This also applies to women who wear leggings , anything with lycra, or tummy revealing tops.


Men can wear anything, because I couldn't care less.

[sorgoth]

Sure, why not?

If you're going to let fat men do it, then let women do it.

[The idea]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Sure, why not?

If you're going to let fat men do it, then let women do it.
Soon, fat men will be required to wear a Bro/Mansierre.

[Z]

I like being nude sometimes, and often can be found at home, even in front of the kids, in various states of nudity. But in general, I wear a shirt and underwear at home, for mainly practical reasons - the main one being, that infants will grab anything that catches their attention and PULL. You don't know pain (men of course) until your chest hair or pubes are being wrenched by an infant you failed to pay attention to.

Nudity is largely impractical, but there are times when it's ok or even desirable. I'm all for equality in nudist policy - but not simply allowing nudity everywhere. If you're in a restaurant, I think clothes for men and women are a must. If you're in your own yard, whatever goes makes sense to me. At the beach? It'd be more prudent for men AND women to wear t-shirts, but I'd require an equal ruling there as well. Wandering around a shady national forest? As topless as you dare - ticks notwithstanding.

It's a lot like the Muslim issue with women's faces... I mean, think how a Muslim must feel the first time he catches sight of a woman's face! Woohoo!!

[NoZed Avenger]

Where is the 'mandatory' option?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by The idea

Soon, fat men will be required to wear a Bro/Mansierre.

Then the terrorists have already won.

[athon]

How could I have missed a topic on nudity? My god, my radar must be failing me.

While I have no problems with nudity, and think places like the states and the UK (and to some extent Australia) are too prudish (I've ranted before about the blurring of a breast-cancer operation doco' on the Discovery channel in case you saw nipple...grrrr), I do think a sudden 'free-for-all' would be difficult for me to adjust to.

When I was working in Oz as a waiter, during the summer we would occasionally get a pretty young thing walk in wearing very little. Often it would be a loose-fitting top with no bra on, giving anybody standing over them (like a waiter) full view of their chest.

Now, the girls in our cafe would laugh about it, and some of the guys would act very blokey about it...me, I found it hard to know where to look. And it made me a little uncomfortable.

I realise it is my problem and not hers. Working in the hospital on the Gold Coast, I saw breasts all the time, and never even blinked. On the beach, it never bothered me either. But put into a situation where they are obvious, and yet the protocol is 'don't look you pervert', I get flustered.

That said, if it was socially acceptable to go topless, I would get used to it.

Athon

[nineinchnails_999]

It's probably just because I've been born and raised in the US (in fact I know it is), but when reading this thread inside my head I was thinking "NO!" the whole time. The first thing that popped into my head was my girlfriend. I would never want her walking around with her top off. To me that part of her body is very special to me, not in the sexual sense but in the sense that she cares about me enough to share that with me. It would be deluded and make me very sad if she ever treated it any other way, and I'm sure that she feels the same about me.

I realized however, that saying that its ok for women to walk around with their shirts off doesn't mean they HAVE to, and I'm sure there would be plenty who wouldn't. Along those lines I agree with most of you, that people should be free to do what they want. I don't think that its terribly offensive, and though it might be awkward in the beginning, especially for those of us raised thinking that it was a no-no, the hooplah would die down over time. I actually find this to be my stance on a lot of issues. I tend to be a very liberal person when it comes to things that affect the whole society, but when it comes to issues that affect me personally I tend to be very conservative.

That all being said, I honestly don't think that this will happen anytime soon....especially with the recent goings on of the FCC, Janet Jackson, etc. Oh well...

Doug

[Z]

So, NIN, what you're saying is, you dislike this concept out of a sense of selfishness, and of ownership of the body of your girlfriend? Interesting.

I'm not trying to be insulting - let me head that off right away. Rather, I'm trying to understand this possessive view of love that some people (most actually) have. See, whether through genetics, envirionment, or what, I seem to be lacking in the jealousy department. If my wives were to decide to walk naked through a Spring Break crowd, I'd simply want to watch the reaction of the drunken young fellows there. Even if one wanted to give of her body to one of them, my only concerns would be disease and pregnancy. I've been told it's a mental illness, but I just think that what any person does with their body is their own business. I love my wives, I don't possess them. I never tell them what to do, what to think, how to dress, or how to act. I expect the same in return, of course. So your statement about not wanting her to share a glimpse of her chest with others strikes me as possessive and selfish, but I know I must be wrong.

Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of thinking that generally keeps our beaches nudity-free - invariably, someone will either invoke a jealous response, or a revulsive one. For my own part, I'd rather not see the elderly and obese topless - male and female alike. But I could care less if the women I loved wanted to flaunt their ample bosoms in public. Heh - I'd rather think the children would have more right of jealousy than I, since their claim to those bosoms is more direct!

[nineinchnails_999]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
So, NIN, what you're saying is, you dislike this concept out of a sense of selfishness, and of ownership of the body of your girlfriend? Interesting.

I'm not trying to be insulting - let me head that off right away. Rather, I'm trying to understand this possessive view of love that some people (most actually) have. See, whether through genetics, envirionment, or what, I seem to be lacking in the jealousy department. If my wives were to decide to walk naked through a Spring Break crowd, I'd simply want to watch the reaction of the drunken young fellows there. Even if one wanted to give of her body to one of them, my only concerns would be disease and pregnancy. I've been told it's a mental illness, but I just think that what any person does with their body is their own business. I love my wives, I don't possess them. I never tell them what to do, what to think, how to dress, or how to act. I expect the same in return, of course. So your statement about not wanting her to share a glimpse of her chest with others strikes me as possessive and selfish, but I know I must be wrong.

Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of thinking that generally keeps our beaches nudity-free - invariably, someone will either invoke a jealous response, or a revulsive one. For my own part, I'd rather not see the elderly and obese topless - male and female alike. But I could care less if the women I loved wanted to flaunt their ample bosoms in public. Heh - I'd rather think the children would have more right of jealousy than I, since their claim to those bosoms is more direct!

Zaay, I wasn't insulted at all. Protective I will admit to, and yes I get jealous sometimes too, but I think these are natural things. I suppose that me wanting to keep my girlfriend's chest away from everyone except myself is selfish, but she agrees with me and it works for us so I'm not too worried about it. Indeed your statement that it was possessive and selfish was in a sense correct, but the only reason that I "possess" that part of her is because that's something that she gave me and something that we agreed on.

At the same time Zaay, I consider your reactions to be completely natural as well, and they don't repulse me one bit. I suppose that's what I meant when I stated that I'm liberal when it comes to society as a whole but conservative when it comes to my own personal life. Your relationships are not mine and how you treat them makes no difference to me as long as you're happy and not hurting anyone else in the process.

In other words, keeping our bodies to ourselfs may be selfish to some, but not to my girlfriend and I because we both feel the same way. And while running around naked my repulse some people it doesn't to you and you're wives (I'm assuming) because you all feel the same way about it. If my girlfriend didn't feel the same way, i.e. wanted to run around naked, well its not my place to stop her, but I can choose to find someone more compatible with myself if I want to, which if it was early enough in the relationship I probably would do. That's how relationships work in my opinion.

I wouldn't say you have a mental illness at all Zaay, I'd say that you're a human being. Your opinion may differ from the majority but so what? You and your wives are free to do whatever you like, and I'm glad that you are.

Doug

[Z]

Well said. Thanks and enjoy!

(BTW - they neither one care for nudity much - too self-conscious. But that's beside the point. And I wear clothes to spare the poor eyes of innocents everywhere - no one needs to see THIS beached whale in the buff! he he he)

[bigred]

edit: disregard. Don't know why when I reply to a thread about a movie I'm suddenly in a thread about hooters, but whatever.

Freakin HAL.

[bigred]

edit: duplicate post, pardon

[Gulliamo]

Most arguments against women baring their breasts were also used in the US against women showing their ankles in the early days of our country; and their legs after that. "It will cause more rapes!" is the same claim made by the opponents of the bikini. In many countries the "men are more visual and possessive" is the argument used to keep women in veils and conceal their faces in public.

I am fairly certain that an activist woman or group of women, with some legal acumen, could walk around topless ANYWHERE in the US that a man could (meaning a park, yard, street, beach - not a restaurant.) Sure they may get arrested and harassed but the Supreme Court Case would almost certainly side with the woman. Anyway the pending media coverage would be worth watching!!! :D

[Dogdoctor]

I don't think it would be any big deal after everyone got used to it. But it might cause a lot of traffic accidents initially. ;) And you would need to be careful walking close to a women with huge silicone breast implants on a cold day or you could be blugeoned to death if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. :)

[DoubtingStephen]

Move to Ontario.


I've a friend originally from Ontario. He told me that there are only 2 seasons in Canada: Winter, and Winter Is Coming.

No offense intended to the wonderful people of Canada, I wish the USA would take lessons from you folks.

Seriously though, I think ladies should be free to walk around topless if that is what they wish to do.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I know you were kidding but, while I don't think Americans are more sexually repressed, I think they tend to be more sexually obsessed... ;)

Actually, I think we're kind of both. We secretly love sex, but we can't bring ourselves to break out of our age old (and largely Christianity-inspired) inhibitions for fear that it will somehow lead to the decay of civilization. Of course our obsession feeds our repression and vice versa until we get a vicious neurotic circle going.

As for the notion of social acceptance of public nudity meaning the end of arousal; well, our ancient ancestors tended to wear far less if anything at all, and they were able to reproduce just fine. While nudity certainly can be erotic, it has to be in the right situation or context. You can put the most beautiful woman in front of me stark raving naked and I don't think I'd be attracted to her if she started treating me like garbage.

There's more to sexy than JUST a nice pair of breasts.

[Ducky]

Bare chests on men aren't considered obscene. Why should it be different for women? Why shouldn't we be able to go bare-chested on the beach when it hits 95 degrees? How come we can get a ticket and you guys don't? Besides, if it were made legal and socially acceptable, maybe men wouldn't make such a big deal out of it anymore. At first, it would be new. But, the novelty would eventually wear off.

What do you think?

I would like to say that I am all for the right for women to go topless.


Yes even the old, wrinkley, pancake sagging boobies. Let 'em all hang out ladies!

[sputnik]

Re: OT - "Should women be able to go shirtless"

I see no reason why women are unable to go shirtless. In fact I believe everyone is born without a shirt and are perfectly able to go without such an item.

Personally I choose to keep a shirt on in summer, I am fair skinned, blonde north european, and burn easy. I would rather forgo skin cancer.

I have always hated "beach holidays" and have annoyed some girlfriends because of this - they all went topless of course. The topless didn't annoy me, but the boredom did.

I just don't understand how people sit on a patch of sand for 4-8 hours soaking up extremely damaging solar radiation gladly.

What is really bizzare is the whole USA outlook on EVERYTHING!! On the one hand the USA produces some of the most "colourful" pornography on the planet, legally, right to free speech and all, yet 45% of the populace b'leeve in Creationism and that nipples are evil and should be banned from public view!

It really is totally bizzare that the USA right wing Christian fundies seem to want to cover their womenfolk just like the mad mullahs of the Muslim Brotherhood with their Burkhas. I see no difference between any of the Abrahim religions. They just want to control their chattels, and wage war on each other.

And of course, deny Science.

PS. Boobies are great no matter how big/small they are - all attributes of female sexuality are brilliant to any male heterosexual! :)

[Loon]

I think it should be legal. I would also implore both women and men not to go shirtless. Odds are good that you are not as pretty as you think.

[sputnik]

You can put the most beautiful woman in front of me stark raving naked and I don't think I'd be attracted to her if she started treating me like garbage.

There's more to sexy than JUST a nice pair of breasts.

You boring bugger! Never tried role play then? The most beautiful woman in the world, playing at a dominatrix...! ...and you would refuse!!? You are sadly insecure!

Role play can be a lot of fun! Though it may go against the catholic missionary position that is the required design to producing children.

[Kiless]

This is a funny bump of a thread.

I'll echo one latter-day poster and one recent one - I have no problems with it at all at such places as the beach and certainly public baths in Japan it was mandatory that you were fully nude (although the men and women's areas were segregated at the one I went to, I am certain there are joint ones too).

But in Australia the risk of skin cancer is serious. And that's probably why for the mostly-white population I'd think against it. It does, as some other posters pointed out, have the added factor of context where you may be discomforting others (hey, when a funny avatar causes conflict, why wouldn't toplessness? I still find people getting irked about nursing mothers and they do it discretely!) or simply inappropriate in terms of safety (you don't have bare toes in the science lab so why a bare torso?).

So. I'd vote for sure, but it'd be restricted.

If there was a area to vote, that is....

Instead of.... 'do I hate a Christmas story'.... well, yes, there weren't enough tits, just that fishnet-stocking-clad lamp. Stupid question. :rolleyes:

[clarsct]

Oh yeah. Men are drooling morons incapable of controling their own impulses. You can't expect a man to have self control or decency. That would ascribe to them traits of an almost HUMAN nature.

Besides, the only women that would go topless would be the amoral nymphomaniacs who would enjoy being raped, anyway.


Bah.

[Kiless]

Besides, the only women that would go topless would be the amoral nymphomaniacs who would enjoy being raped, anyway.

I was wondering about that story about a judge who ruled that because a woman wore tight jeans, she was asking to be assaulted.... just found a link here (http://www.ishipress.com/italrape.htm). Truth is, idiots abound anywhere and will use anything as an excuse for things ranging from bad manners to breaking the law. :rolleyes:

[jimtron]

how about just making men cover up?

Yes. I think men should be required to wear burkas. That'll teach women to treat them like sex objects.

[valis]

It is really a matter of astehtics. Some people-male or female- look great toplesss; others should, please for the love of God, put on a friggin shirt.

In the case of women the best case here is to send me photos and I will let you know if, in your individual case, you should go topless.

No need to thank me ma'am, jes' tryin' to help.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No one wants to see some 300lb woman or some 60 year old woman walking around topless!

[Dogdoctor]

No one wants to see some 300lb woman or some 60 year old woman walking around topless!
I wouldn't mind. However if it were legal they probably would not walk around naked, though I did see a 400 pound women in hot pants at the post office once. I won't ever forget that. It would have been a much less dramatic experience if she were completely naked.

[KingMerv00]

If you let women go topless all the time, they'd be running the world in about 10 minutes.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That's the problem...It's considered "Obscene". I have the right not to see disgusting sights as I walk down the street.
Since it's not something I can avoid...Since I obviously can't look away from everyone I see if alot of them are butt naked.

[clarsct]

That's the problem...It's considered "Obscene". I have the right not to see disgusting sights as I walk down the street.
Since it's not something I can avoid...Since I obviously can't look away from everyone I see if alot of them are butt naked.
bolding mine

Regarding the bolded statement: Says WHO?! And define disgusting! Define obscene!

I find blue jeans to be obscene, do I have a right to tell every woman I meet to take them off, and ANY expectation to be obeyed?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

bolding mine

Regarding the bolded statement: Says WHO?! And define disgusting! Define obscene!

I find blue jeans to be obscene, do I have a right to tell every woman I meet to take them off, and ANY expectation to be obeyed?



There are numeorus case laws dealing with indecency and obscenity.They have aspects I don't agree with however.

When it comes to public places where people can not reasonably avoid whatever they are seeing then the laws should come into place.

For instance are you telling me that people should have the right to defecate in public if they wanted to? As in go into a park and strip naked and defecate into a bowl? Should they have the right to do that? Of course not.
How about having sex in public? Should that be allowed too?

Why? Because the average person would consider it obscene. Your "average person" anywhere in america would not consider blue jeans obscene. Which is exactly how the law is defined. Your average person would not want to see people having sex in public,Being completly nude in public or even deficecating in public. It's called the "miller test" stemming from the case MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Which is just one case among many dealing with obscenity.

I don't agree with all of the aspects of the current obscenity laws however. One example is the fact that something should not be considered illegal if people have to "seek it out" to actually see it. Pornography for instance,Or Nudist parks.
If people want to walk around completly naked in nudist parks where people not wanting to see them naked don't and can reasonably avoid seeing them naked simply by not going and signing up and entering the parks.
If most people were allowed to be completly naked in public or commit other obscene acts just anywhere,Then people would literally have to look away and could not "reasonably" avoid seeing the acts in their daily lives.
For instance if several co-workers are nude..You very well can't get through work without looking at your co-workers or get through a day without looking at your coustomers.

Another problem I have with the current obscenity laws is their application to speech. I don't think they should apply to speech at all.
People can get physically sick from seeing disgusting things such as 60 year olds having sex or someone defecating into a bowl..But i've never seen someone get ill from someone using the word "damn" or "hell".

[Moochie]

That humans are still so hung up about their bodies and sexuality tends to make me think we have at least one (unclad) leg stuck in the Dark Ages.

M.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

That humans are still so hung up about their bodies and sexuality tends to make me think we have at least one (unclad) leg stuck in the Dark Ages.

M.


It has nothing to do with sexuality.

I simply find an 80 year old woman naked gross,Or overweight or ugly women or men of any kind.

[KingMerv00]

It has nothing to do with sexuality.

I simply find an 80 year old woman naked gross,Or overweight or ugly women or men of any kind.

I don't think that is a good enough reason to pass a law.

[Renfield]

I prefer the American mentality towards nudity. Nudity should be off limits except for certain special circumstances. I don't have any philosophical reasons for this. I just don't want to see it, in most cases. fI mean, look around. Generally, most people don't look that good.

[Gulliamo]

It has nothing to do with sexuality.

I simply find an 80 year old woman naked gross,Or overweight or ugly women or men of any kind.Then why are there not laws banning MEN from being shirtless in public? Most companies have rules regarding dress code. Your point about sex or defecation in public is completely off topic and is a straw man. We are asking why women cannot go shirtless in the same locations men are allowed to, focus now, not whether or not 60 year olds may perform fellatio in public.

Do you, or do you not, believe that women should have equivalent rights to their male counterparts regarding dress code in the same location? That is the question.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then why are there not laws banning MEN from being shirtless in public? Most companies have rules regarding dress code.


Because our society accepts men being able to go shirtless in public.

Your point about sex or defecation in public is completely off topic and is a straw man. We are asking why women cannot go shirtless in the same locations men are allowed to, focus now, not whether or not 60 year olds may perform fellatio in public.

1.It's not a strawman. It's directly relevant to the topic. My argument is women should not be able to go shirtless because most of the women in america are overweight and disgusting. This has to do with obscenity,So other obscenity topics are DIRECTLY related to this topic.

2.You need to look up the definition of strawman.

Do you, or do you not, believe that women should have equivalent rights to their male counterparts regarding dress code in the same location? That is the question.


No I don't believe so. I've already stated this numeorus times.
This is an obscenity issue. It's disgusting and obscene to see people naked who are simply ugly. Your average person does not want to see some saggy dropping naked 200lb woman. Or some naked 70 year old woman. Or anything else like that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't think that is a good enough reason to pass a law.


I think it is. And the supreme court of the united states agrees with me.

[Dogdoctor]

It's and evil plot by the people who regularly post on the education board. They put up this post here because they knew there would be endless bickering drawing attention to their education board. Resist the temptation to talk about breasts in public. I mean what is there to say about breasts in public anyway? Well besides that? And of course besides that too? And that also? and that? I think this all stems from us nursing as babies so we are imprinted with the idea that breasts are very important. Wait a minute !! What am I doing? Writing more about breasts? There! Proof of my theory. I just can't resist because I was imprinted with the idea as a baby that the breast is the most important thing in the world.

[Gulliamo]

My argument is women should not be able to go shirtless because most of the women in america are overweight and disgusting.
Most of the people, men and women alike, in the US are overweight. Again, completely off topic (straw man.) Other than to promote bigotry and sexism why should the laws governing women differ than men?
This has to do with obscenity,So other obscenity topics are DIRECTLY related to this topic.No, it has to do with women’s rights. Changing the topic to a vague definition of obscenity is why I say "Straw Man."
2.You need to look up the definition of strawman. OK. How about here. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
"The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily" It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing.


And the supreme court of the united states agrees with me.No one is asking what the current law is, we are asking if it is a just and fair law. When SCOTUS agreed with you on women’s voting rights it did not make it just and fair. Many State's Supreme Courts side with me. Does that make my position stronger or is it simply another weak appeal to authority such as you offer?

For the record: Do you believe that laws governing women should differ from laws governing men?

[1984]

Some guys have man-boobs that quite frankly I am repulsed by. I'm all for women going topless. I'd guess a lot of cosmetic surgery places would be getting a lot more bookings.

[valis]

ummmmmmm ladies did you not read my earlier message? I can not help but to notice that my inbox is not full of jpegs. How can I help you if you don't send the photos?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Most of the people, men and women alike, in the US are overweight. Again, completely off topic (straw man.) Other than to promote bigotry and sexism why should the laws governing women differ than men?

1.You're completly mangling the term "strawman". Overweight people naked is not something most people want to see.

2.Yes. I've said that numeorus times. Try to LISTEN.



No, it has to do with women’s rights. Changing the topic to a vague definition of obscenity is why I say "Straw Man."

Except your're wrong again....It DOES deal with obscenity.Because if women had the right to walk around nude in public it would be obscene.

OK. How about here. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
"The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily" It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing.

I don't see how im doing that at all. All im doing is clarifying the position.


No one is asking what the current law is, we are asking if it is a just and fair law. When SCOTUS agreed with you on women’s voting rights it did not make it just and fair. Many State's Supreme Courts side with me. Does that make my position stronger or is it simply another weak appeal to authority such as you offer?

For the record: Do you believe that laws governing women should differ from laws governing men?


Gulliamo....NO court in the united states agrees with you that women can walk the streets topless. You find me one un-overturned case where the courts have declaired women have the right to be naked in public places,Not including nudist parks.

BTW..There's only one Supreme Court of the United States.


For the record: Do you believe that laws governing women should differ from laws governing men?

Yes. Women are naturally different from men.

[bignickel]

Americans won't allow topless display from women not because they're prudes per se, but for a related reason: Americans love to fetishize the female breast. To allow Western women to go topless as much as men do would destroy that fetishization by making it common. Whither would "Girls Gone Wild" go?

Actually, GGW is a good example that both men AND women fetishize the female breast. Heck, I suspect that a good reason that lingerie is so popular is precisely that it is a 'frame' that displays the artwork (in both sexes eyes).

The majority of Americans would never want to give that up (although they would never voice their objections to it this honestly)

[Loon]

I dunno about you bignickel, but I tend to fetishize breasts in pairs. None of this "female breast (singular)" crap for me unless it's one of those "one, then the other" type of things.

[bignickel]

All good things come to those who wait.

Which reminds me: I'm currently looking at moving out to Tokyo this week. And I've still got a lot of boxes to pack up.

[Moochie]

Virtually all responses have confirmed me in my thinking. The human species is mortally screwed in the head.

M.

[Gulliamo]

I asked, "Other than to promote bigotry and sexism why should the laws governing women differ than men?" To which you respond...
2.Yes. I've said that numeorus times. Try to LISTEN.This was not a Yes or No question. I am trying to listen but it seems you are only answering the questions you want to hear.


I asked, "For the record: Do you believe that laws governing women should differ from laws governing men?"
Yes. Women are naturally different from men. Got it, we have now established your position. It is often referred to as sexism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism) See bullet #2.


Are you also a proponent of suffrage? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman%27s_Sufferage) If not please explain.

[1984]

Virtually all responses have confirmed me in my thinking. The human species is mortally screwed in the head.

M.

Oh goodie, a chance to quote...
<DL><DD>"O wonder! <DD>How many goodly creatures are there here! <DD>How beautious mankind is! <DD>O brave new world, <DD>That has such people in't!"</DD></DL>...in the sense that Huxley used it.

[Garrette]

To paraphrase comedian Ron White:

Back me up on this guys--when you've seen one woman nekkid......

[Takes long slow pull on cigarette then slow sip of whiskey]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You want to see all of 'em nekkid..

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Americans won't allow topless display from women not because they're prudes per se, but for a related reason: Americans love to fetishize the female breast. To allow Western women to go topless as much as men do would destroy that fetishization by making it common. Whither would "Girls Gone Wild" go?

Actually, GGW is a good example that both men AND women fetishize the female breast. Heck, I suspect that a good reason that lingerie is so popular is precisely that it is a 'frame' that displays the artwork (in both sexes eyes).

The majority of Americans would never want to give that up (although they would never voice their objections to it this honestly)


Sounds like conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo to me.

[bignickel]

Sounds like conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo to me.

Well, good for you.

Where, exactly, is the conspiracy?

[Loon]

Well, good for you.

Where, exactly, is the conspiracy?

Clearly, it's hidden in the shirts and bras used to cover up all of those breasts! It's the one place we're not allowed to look (in public....)

[bignickel]

It does take 2 to make a conspiracy...

[Xeriar]

So, to sum up: Americans are sexually repressed. :D

What constitutes rape in the U.S. is... an issue in and of itself. It's getting out of hand here. What constitutes rape in Japan is also an issue for exact opposite reasons.

Though I don't doubt that puritan sexual repression causes harm.

----

That said, I certainly think if anyone wants to go topless, male or female, they certainly have a right to, no matter how ugly other might think them, because there will always be some ass that calls you ugly. We still have the rights to our own personal space.

[rjh01]

How many woman would go topless in public anyway? I say very few. Do not see many men going around topless. But then I guess this depends on the local climate.

[Dogdoctor]

How many woman would go topless in public anyway? I say very few. Do not see many men going around topless. But then I guess this depends on the local climate.
As a youth I was topless most of the time (Hawaii). Just recently I went shopping at a convenience store/gas station topless because I did not bring a shirt with me and I was just surfing. I got looks that I never got as a kid, one guy looked at his own pectorals after looking at me (comparing ?), and others I imagine by their scowls did not approve of my attire (surf shorts)

[gnome]

Dustin: If female toplessness happened to be accepted by the majority, would that change your opinion as well?

So far your opinion seems to be, "As the majority goes, so do I"

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin: If female toplessness happened to be accepted by the majority, would that change your opinion as well?

So far your opinion seems to be, "As the majority goes, so do I"



Let me put it this way...If in a community the majority of the people say it's ok for females to go around topless in public then it would be ok to make it legal.

I would not go to such a community.

If most people in AMERICA said it is ok for women to walk around topless it would be ok for them to make it legal.


However since I have do not want to see 80 year old breasts or 300lb woman breasts all over the place topless...I would most likely flee the country in disgust.

[kedo1981]

One of my life credo's "more tits, less violence"

[Gulliamo]

If most people in AMERICA said it is ok for women to walk around topless it would be ok for them to make it legal.Fortunately we, in the US, have a system of checks and balances. When the majority, or "most people in AMERICA," believe something that does NOT make it legal. If "most people in AMERICA said it is ok" to discriminate against brown eyed people, and said people voted in politicians that passed such a law, it would quickly be turned over by the courts as unconstitutional.

This is why we in the US do not vote for our judges- they are not to float with the currents of popular opinion but to do what is constitutional!

[bignickel]

Unless the majority want to illegalize certain narcotics, while leaving others alone.

In which case our courts are quite happy to turn their heads from what the majority are doing. Which is always the tricky bit about an actual democracy in practice: judges can get appointed who agree with the majority opinion.

I'm still surprised that we had judges with enough integrity in the 50s and 60's to actually inforce the Constitution's promise of equality for all.

[davefoc]

Has the subject of why this thread is in the education sub-forum been brought up? Enquiring minds want to know.

One thought that hasn't been mentioned is that I believe that bare breasts have not always been out of fashion. I believe that during the Victorian age they were acceptable in some social situations.

I have noticed in Europe, that the statues of women almost always have bare breasts. I liked this. I wonder if the Europeans are still building statues of bare chested women or they're just keeping the old ones around.

[Garrette]

For Guillamo: While I agree with the bulk of your post and its spirit entirely, I must point out that some judgeships are indeed elective offices. County Judges in Kentucky is what I'm thinking of in particular. In a similar vein, most (if not all) Sheriff's positions are elective offices and some Coroner positions. Which means that technically a non-lawyer could be a judge and a non-doctor could be a coroner.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Fortunately we, in the US, have a system of checks and balances. When the majority, or "most people in AMERICA," believe something that does NOT make it legal. If "most people in AMERICA said it is ok" to discriminate against brown eyed people, and said people voted in politicians that passed such a law, it would quickly be turned over by the courts as unconstitutional.

This is why we in the US do not vote for our judges- they are not to float with the currents of popular opinion but to do what is constitutional!


1.This has nothing to do with discrimination,it has to do with obscenity.

2.There is no constitutional right to walk around naked. Our country has what you call "obsecenity" laws and the supreme court of the united states as i've mentioned have ruled supporting them.


Let me ask YOU this question...It's a yes or no question now.

Do you want to see obsese women or elderly women butt naked in public everywhere you go? Yes or No?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Unless the majority want to illegalize certain narcotics, while leaving others alone.

In which case our courts are quite happy to turn their heads from what the majority are doing. Which is always the tricky bit about an actual democracy in practice: judges can get appointed who agree with the majority opinion.

I'm still surprised that we had judges with enough integrity in the 50s and 60's to actually inforce the Constitution's promise of equality for all.



You need to realize that doing drugs in the privacy of your own home and walking around in public naked are two different things.

You're free to be naked in your own home where you don't effect others.

Just not in public.

[Beerina]

1.This has nothing to do with discrimination,it has to do with obscenity.

As defined by males, to control females. Men don't want other men looking at their females. Females and their sexuality are owned by men. Therefore men make it illegal for females to show off their body.

If you are female, we, the males, own you and your sexuality. Put your top back on because we don't give you permission to take it off. Go on, we men tell you to put it back on, and you must, because you are owned by us.

[Beerina]

You need to realize that doing drugs in the privacy of your own home and walking around in public naked are two different things.

You're free to be naked in your own home where you don't effect others.



Precisely! It's because your naked breasts have an effect on males, that we males use our ownership of female sexuality and females in general to prohibit the females from showing their breasts. Yes! You understand! It's precisely because females have an effect on males that males own female sexuality! The sight of your bodies arouses us, affects us; ergo, we own your sexuality and your displays and may prevent you from displaying your breasts because it affects us; because we males say so.

By George, I think he's got it!

[LW]

Do you want to see obsese women or elderly women butt naked in public everywhere you go? Yes or No?

No.

But I don't want to see obese or elderly women or any men at all [barring the situation that I'm actually seeking specific persons], clothed or not. However, I'm not bothered seeing obese and elderly people and men everywhere where I go, clothed or not. [Though, given the climate of this fine country most people are clothed year round except in saunas.]

I have never really understood the public displays of revulsion (real or faked) that arise whenever the subject of naked ugly people comes up.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As defined by males, to control females. Men don't want other men looking at their females. Females and their sexuality are owned by men. Therefore men make it illegal for females to show off their body.

If you are female, we, the males, own you and your sexuality. Put your top back on because we don't give you permission to take it off. Go on, we men tell you to put it back on, and you must, because you are owned by us.


That's more nonsense.

What's your explanation as to why we don't allow MEN to walk around without paints on? Testicles hanging and all?

In reality it has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with obscenity like i've been saying.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No.

But I don't want to see obese or elderly women or any men at all [barring the situation that I'm actually seeking specific persons], clothed or not. However, I'm not bothered seeing obese and elderly people and men everywhere where I go, clothed or not. [Though, given the climate of this fine country most people are clothed year round except in saunas.]

I have never really understood the public displays of revulsion (real or faked) that arise whenever the subject of naked ugly people comes up.


You're not making any sense.

You say no you don't want to see them naked. Then you say you don't want to see obese or elderly women or men at all. Then you say you don't care if you do.

[clarsct]

It's quite simple, Dustin.

It doesn't matter that you are offended by it. to call something obscene is a subjective judgement. It cannot be legislated or enforced in such a way that makes any damned sense whatsoever. Everyone has a different view of obscene.

As for not 'wanting' to see something, then don't look. I don't necessarily like seeing homeless people out on the streets. Does that mean we should consider homelessness obscene?

Just because it is your opinion, does not mean it is right, or even right for everybody.

Oh, and why pick on the fat and the old? Why not say ugly people have to walk around with bags over their heads?

Men wear pants for two reasons:
1) So their junk doesn't snag on stuff. Ouch!
2) Because most male egos can't handle the idea that their penis is smaller than someone else's.

And finally, the human body is asthetically pleasing. Look at the Rubenesque period in Renaissance art, or the sculptures of Rodin. The idea that it is something to be ashamed of is absurd. We are what we are.

I have no problems in living in a clothing-optional society. Most of these laws in the US are religiously based, and thus, in a secular society, ought to be questioned.

[Flange Desire]

... As for female children being molested, I believe it's probably under-reported...for obvious reasons...
The reasons you believe this are not obvious to me.

Given the widespread belief in 'suppressed memories', 'satanic rituals' and similar wooisms, they may very well be over-reported.

[Gulliamo]

1.This has nothing to do with discrimination,it has to do with obscenity.
Not true. The very definition of discrimination is "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" and this is exactly what you are talking about- different laws for women than men.
2.There is no constitutional right to walk around naked. Our country has what you call "obsecenity" laws and the supreme court of the united states as i've mentioned have ruled supporting them.I digress. This conversation is not about whether or not we have laws. Please stop stating that we have laws. We know we have laws. You've already said we have laws. I have already responded to you about this. We are questioning whether or not the laws in place are just and fair, it seems you feel it is wrong to question current law.

Let me ask YOU this question...It's a yes or no question now.

Do you want to see obsese women or elderly women butt naked in public everywhere you go? Yes or No? No. I do not want to see any ugly people of any sex anywhere. Nor do I ever want to listen to country music. Nor do I ever want to see anyone who is even slightly overweight or out of shape. BUT I would never support a law that imposes my whims on others. And if we, as a society, deemed country music illegal it would make it twice as wrong if only women were not allowed to listen.

[Gulliamo]

What's your explanation as to why we don't allow MEN to walk around without paints on? Testicles hanging and all?
Quit building straw men! This is not about oranges. We are talking about apples! The "pants laws" you refer to are equally applied to both men AND women. Please read the title of the thread and stick to it. The "pants laws" are in question in another thread. Go there if you would like to make your obscenity arguments. Here, it this thread, we are talking about why there are laws discriminating (see earlier definition) against women. Why, in this day and age, in a first world country, do women have fewer rights than men? Why are your obscenity laws discriminatory?

[madcow]

Now I read this on the internets, so don't blame me if it's not 100% accurate and I hope my memory serves me, too.

Until the late '30s it was against the law for men to go topless in public; even after this was decriminalized, many were still arrested for doing it into the '50s. I wish I could find the site I read this on to determine what state it was in and check the accuracy, but if it's true, it's interesting.

I won't deny that we are hung up over skin. My parents freak out 'cuz I walk around naked in my house. So does my wife, though probably a tad less often. We have both been known to visit clothing optional beaches. It's so incredibly silly to be so hung up over this issue, but I don't think those that are hung up over it would get over it unless they just walked around naked every now and then and would stopped being ashamed of their bodies.

Who cares if people are fat, thin, ugly or pretty. Sure, I appreciate those that are easy on the eyes, but I have no disdain for a fattie or ganny on the beach. Let people be who and what they are!

Damn.

[bignickel]

You need to realize that doing drugs in the privacy of your own home and walking around in public naked are two different things.

You're free to be naked in your own home where you don't effect others.

Just not in public.

Er, that particular post wasn't about the thread, but was a direct response about the previous poster's comment about the US judiciary protecting the minority from the majority.

And yeah, I do know that they are two different things.

(I see you're using Newton as your avatar; read Stephenson's The Baroque Cycle yet?)

[swstephe]

in many muslim countries, women are generally expected to cover their hair with a headscarf, (although nearly every muslim country has liberal or unenforced city areas). now, the typical reason given for this rule is not so much to protect the women, but to protect the men from being aroused.

now, if the prevailing western sentiment toward headscarves is that it is considered a form of repression and a way of psychologically limiting women, then wouldn't covering up the breasts be as repressing and limiting? a hundred years ago, even in america, a man would get excited to catch a glimpse of a woman's ankle. as women gained more political power in america, they were able to shed more clothing and we adapted. so i would expect that there is some correlation between social/psychological supression of women and clothing that they are *required* to wear.

so, i say that women shouldn't be *required* to cover up, it should be left to personal discretion and private settings, (there are many places where men have to cover up -- no shirt, no shoes, no service -- and there are even places where we have to use certain clothing types -- tie and jacket for example.

[1984]

in many muslim countries, women are generally expected to cover their hair with a headscarf, (although nearly every muslim country has liberal or unenforced city areas). now, the typical reason given for this rule is not so much to protect the women, but to protect the men from being aroused.

now, if the prevailing western sentiment toward headscarves is that it is considered a form of repression and a way of psychologically limiting women, then wouldn't covering up the breasts be as repressing and limiting? *(snip)*

On that point, I read somewhere that the hijab actally empowered women, particularly in business situations, where they could carry out their activities as an equal. Man wears suit, woman wears hijab.

[LW]

You say no you don't want to see them naked. Then you say you don't want to see obese or elderly women or men at all. Then you say you don't care if you do.

My dictionary defines "want" as "to have a desire to possess or do (something)".

I don't desire to see ugly people but I'm not bothered if I do.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Quit building straw men! This is not about oranges. We are talking about apples! The "pants laws" you refer to are equally applied to both men AND women. Please read the title of the thread and stick to it. The "pants laws" are in question in another thread. Go there if you would like to make your obscenity arguments. Here, it this thread, we are talking about why there are laws discriminating (see earlier definition) against women. Why, in this day and age, in a first world country, do women have fewer rights than men? Why are your obscenity laws discriminatory?



You're not listening to me...


Answer the question...DO you think men should be able to walk around butt naked in public?

If not,Why not?

Whatever your answer is,That's the reason women should not be able to walk around topless.

Anything but a strawman.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's quite simple, Dustin.

It doesn't matter that you are offended by it. to call something obscene is a subjective judgement. It cannot be legislated or enforced in such a way that makes any damned sense whatsoever. Everyone has a different view of obscene.

You need to look at current laws governing obsecenity. If the majority in a specific area see's something as obsecne,It's obscene. That's how the laws work.

As for not 'wanting' to see something, then don't look. I don't necessarily like seeing homeless people out on the streets. Does that mean we should consider homelessness obscene?

It's not reasonable to look away when dozens of people are naked in the street.

It would be nearly impossible to avoid seeing them.


Men wear pants for two reasons:
1) So their junk doesn't snag on stuff. Ouch!
2) Because most male egos can't handle the idea that their penis is smaller than someone else's.

And women can handel the idea their breasts are smaller? Is that why so many get breast implants?


And finally, the human body is asthetically pleasing. Look at the Rubenesque period in Renaissance art, or the sculptures of Rodin. The idea that it is something to be ashamed of is absurd. We are what we are.

Asthetically pleasing? That's your opinion. You can't make your opinion the law and allow them to go naked.

I have no problems in living in a clothing-optional society. Most of these laws in the US are religiously based, and thus, in a secular society, ought to be questioned.

Wearing clothing has nothing to do with christianity,The majority religion in the country. Nowhere in the bible does it say you must wear cloths.
Meaning your claim the obscenity laws are religous based are in theirself baseless.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Not true. The very definition of discrimination is "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" and this is exactly what you are talking about- different laws for women than men.

Wrong again.

Let me give you an example.

If a woman were to have surgery to make herself a man and get rid of her hanging breasts im sure no one would question her when she goes to the beach without a shirt on.

Meaning these laws ARE based on individual merit opposed to category.

I digress. This conversation is not about whether or not we have laws. Please stop stating that we have laws. We know we have laws. You've already said we have laws. I have already responded to you about this. We are questioning whether or not the laws in place are just and fair, it seems you feel it is wrong to question current law.

You're mixing it all up again. Obscenity laws are in place for the majority population. If the majroity see's it obscene for women to walk around naked...Then they have the right not to see women walk around naked. Meaning in such a community they can make the laws concerning such things.

No. I do not want to see any ugly people of any sex anywhere. Nor do I ever want to listen to country music. Nor do I ever want to see anyone who is even slightly overweight or out of shape. BUT I would never support a law that imposes my whims on others. And if we, as a society, deemed country music illegal it would make it twice as wrong if only women were not allowed to listen.

Are you saying that if you had some reason to see this ugly or fat person for instance for a job interview you would not WANT to?

Secondly,It's not just your whims. The obscenity laws are defined by community. In some communities it's ok for men to walk the streets without shirts or shoes on and in a thong. In other communities their walking the sidewalks in a thong would be considered obscene and they would likely get a ticket for public indeciency.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Now I read this on the internets, so don't blame me if it's not 100% accurate and I hope my memory serves me, too.

Until the late '30s it was against the law for men to go topless in public; even after this was decriminalized, many were still arrested for doing it into the '50s. I wish I could find the site I read this on to determine what state it was in and check the accuracy, but if it's true, it's interesting.

I won't deny that we are hung up over skin. My parents freak out 'cuz I walk around naked in my house. So does my wife, though probably a tad less often. We have both been known to visit clothing optional beaches. It's so incredibly silly to be so hung up over this issue, but I don't think those that are hung up over it would get over it unless they just walked around naked every now and then and would stopped being ashamed of their bodies.

Who cares if people are fat, thin, ugly or pretty. Sure, I appreciate those that are easy on the eyes, but I have no disdain for a fattie or ganny on the beach. Let people be who and what they are!

Damn.


This does not sound true. I remember seeing photographs from the 1930's in venice beach california where bodybuilders of the era would be on the beach without shirts all of the time.

Heck,There are even photo's of men swim teams or beach photographs from the late 1800's where the men were shirtless.

[neutrino_cannon]

It occurs to me that breast development is a secondary sexual characteristic. So are adam's apples and beards, and generally speaking those aren't scandalizing. I don't think anybody would dispute that seeing someone's primary sexual characteristics could cause all sorts of hardwired responses, but based on the fact that plenty of societies allow women to go topless there's no reason to assume that the visual signature of breasts has the same hardwired effect. I can only conclude that breasts have been fetishized for no particular reason by society at large.

This would put breast covering laws on the same level as ankle covering laws; within the society's jurisdiction, but for the love of gravy why?

[clarsct]

You need to look at current laws governing obsecenity. If the majority in a specific area see's something as obsecne,It's obscene. That's how the laws work.
Actually, a judge can strike those laws down, regardless of what the majority rule. If the majority rule that Menstration is obscene, and discriminate against women during their cycle, then a judge can say that is a discriminatory law, and strike it down. The law is a changing, living thing, not a static dogma.



It's not reasonable to look away when dozens of people are naked in the street.

It would be nearly impossible to avoid seeing them.
There are dozens upon dozen of homeless people in the street. Seeing them offends my sensibilities, and those of others, whether they admit it or not. Should we pass laws against homelessness?




And women can handel the idea their breasts are smaller? Is that why so many get breast implants?
When those laws were made, women didn't get a vote. Women get breast implants for a variety of reasons. Could be low self esteem, but it also could be something else. Maybe it's because their man wants them to.




Asthetically pleasing? That's your opinion. You can't make your opinion the law and allow them to go naked.Niether can you.



Wearing clothing has nothing to do with christianity,The majority religion in the country. Nowhere in the bible does it say you must wear cloths.
Meaning your claim the obscenity laws are religous based are in theirself baseless.

WHAT?! Have you READ the book in question?

Some examples:
Genesis 3
{6} When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.{7} Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. {8}Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.{9} But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?" {10}He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." <O:p</O:p




Genesis 9
{20}Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.{21} When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.{22} Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.{23}But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. {24}<O:p</O:p When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,{25} he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
{26}He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
{27}May God extend the territory of Japheth ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave." <O:p</O:p


Exodus 20
{22}
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have spoken to you from heaven:{23} Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.{24}" 'Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle. Wherever I cause my name to be honored, I will come to you and bless you.{25}If you make an altar of stones for me, do not build it with dressed stones, for you will defile it if you use a tool on it.{26} And do not go up to my altar on steps, lest your nakedness be exposed on it.'<O:p</O:p


Obviously, nakedness is associated with shame. Adam and Eve did not know they were naked until they ate of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Which do you think nakedness falls under, hmmmmm?

Exodus 20 you might remember. It is the one the Ten Commandments came out of.

I'd say there is a good basis for thinking that nudity laws are a Christian artifice.

[Dylab]

For clarity, what do you guys believe should be the relationship between social norms and values and laws? It seems important to the topic yet I'm not clear on what all of your views are.

[rjh01]

I think the only reason laws should exist is to prevent society being damaged. If I kill you then society has been damaged. If I run around my house naked then I have not damaged society so that should be legal.
If I pick my nose in public then I may have breeched a social norm but not hurt society so it should be legal.

[rjh01]

What is obscene about an artwork featuring nude women? (Plenty of them in 17-1900 European artwork). Then what is the difference between that and live topless (or naked) women? Anything more offensive than a homeless person whom feature in most cities?

[veggie doll]

It should be legal. Equality for all who wish to expose their nipples, I say.

That doesn't mean I'd embrace it though. No matter the weather, I, as a 19 year old woman, would never step out of my house topless. I can't even walk down the street in a dress without being whistled at by some moron in a truck.

[veggie doll]

What is obscene about an artwork featuring nude women? (Plenty of them in 17-1900 European artwork). Then what is the difference between that and live topless (or naked) women? Anything more offensive than a homeless person whom feature in most cities?
The difference being that Art is two-dimensional. Painted breasts don't bounce. Nobody talks to a nude painting, trying to make sure they aren't staring or causing discomfort. Nobody shouts derogatory comments at a painting that may offend that paintings feelings.

[Dr Adequate]

I have noticed in Europe, that the statues of women almost always have bare breasts. I liked this. I wonder if the Europeans are still building statues of bare chested women ... Fortunately it's not absolutely compulsory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1795000/images/_1795901_newthatc150pa.jpg

[Roboramma]

I don't really get the discrimination line. There is a very real and meaningful difference between a man going topless and a woman going topless - a woman has breasts, a man does not.
I certainly don't find anything disgusting about seeing a woman's breasts. I do find something exciting about it, however. Particularly her nipples. How many women are excited about seeing a man's nipples?

You can't cry foul of discrimination when the basis of the discrimination is real.

The issue isn't "are women being discriminated against?" the issue is, "Is there a good reason for us to disallow women going topless in public?", or "Is there a good reason to stop women from baring their breasts in public?"

I don't presume to have an answer to those questions, but they are definitely different questions than "Is there a good reason to disallow men going topless in public?", or "Is there a good reason to stop men from baring their breasts in public?" For the simple reason that men do not have breasts.

[gnome]

Actually I don't believe it's correct to say that men do not have breasts... though they do not function as mammaries, are they not the same anatomy, with nipples and all?

Nor is it universally true that men's breasts are not prominent. While the common tendency is there for women's breasts to be more noticeable, I see the distinction mainly as cultural.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think the only reason laws should exist is to prevent society being damaged. If I kill you then society has been damaged. If I run around my house naked then I have not damaged society so that should be legal.
If I pick my nose in public then I may have breeched a social norm but not hurt society so it should be legal.

That's complete nonsense.

If I kill someone who is say..Mentally ill who's death does not hurt society but benefits it. Should that be legal?
Say this mentally ill person is living in some mental hospital and is just costing society money. Where this persons death would benefit society.
You're saying killing people as long as it does not hurt society is ok? Unemployed,Homeless,Mentally ill,Physically ill where they can not work because of their sickness or physical inability..All freegame to murder since their death does not hurt society but benefits it?

I would not want to live in such a society.

[rjh01]

That's complete nonsense.

If I kill someone who is say..Mentally ill who's death does not hurt society but benefits it. Should that be legal?
Say this mentally ill person is living in some mental hospital and is just costing society money. Where this persons death would benefit society.
You're saying killing people as long as it does not hurt society is ok? Unemployed,Homeless,Mentally ill,Physically ill where they can not work because of their sickness or physical inability..All freegame to murder since their death does not hurt society but benefits it?

I would not want to live in such a society.

I say killing such people will harm society for so many reasons. These reasons are the same as the reasons you do not want to live in such a society.

[gypsynuke]

This isn't a question of whether full frontal nudity should be allowed. Boys can't show their winkies and girls can't show their coochies. Yes. The question is, since men are allowed to go topless and expose their breasts, why can't women have that same right? What legal reason is there to discriminate against women, no personal or religious beliefs please.

[Roboramma]

While the common tendency is there for women's breasts to be more noticeable, I see the distinction mainly as cultural.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with you that the distinction is mainly cultural. I think it's mainly biological, but you'll have to give me some time to get back to you on that - right now I only have the energy for a short reply. Though I would quickly like to ask this - do you think that the increased deposition of fat on women's chest in a way that tends to form a rather specific patern(a range of shapes, but relatively uniform) is an adaptation that evolved by natural selection (which could include sexual selection)?

But the point I'd like to make now is this - even if the distinction is mainly cultural, that doesn't make it baseless.

Basically, you're point (if I read you right, and please correct me if I'm wrong)is that we only see women's breasts as different in kind from men's because we are brought up and raised in a society that views them that way.
Okay. But here we all are, living in that society. Is there a good reason, in this society, for women to cover their breasts?

Again, I don't know that I have that answer. Maybe we'd all get used to it. Maybe it shouldn't matter if a few people would get upset, women should have that right anyway. I certainly don't think I'd mind. But I'm a 25 year old guy without children. I'm sure you can imagine my thoughts on the subject.

But Dustin's point about genital nudity seems to be this: Why is genital nudity illegal? If it is because it will cause some people distress, or because some of us find it disgusting, or whatever, then clearly that is a viable reason to make us cover up something.

The next question would be, do women's breasts have a similar affect to genitals? Clearly there is at least a difference in degree here. But I do think that it would be fair to the debate for someone to answer his question, "Why is genital nudity illegal? Should it be?"
The point isn't that they are the same thing, but that the questions have similar answers. With that answer we can at least talk about why that doesn't apply to women's breasts. Anyone?

[brodski]

Fortunately it's not absolutely compulsory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1795000/images/_1795901_newthatc150pa.jpg
thank you Dr A, for putting one of the most disturbing images ever into my head!

I'm all for women being allowed to go bare breasted if they want, but thatcher, doesn't qualify.

[sphenisc]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you that the distinction is mainly cultural. I think it's mainly biological, but you'll have to give me some time to get back to you on that - right now I only have the energy for a short reply.



If this story is true, then there appears to be a cultural element.
http://reachthetribes.com/Apr2004/April2004Web/page0005.html

[NeilC]

I don't think that vast majority of women would want to go about bare-chested. Particularly not ones with saggy,old, unattractive, very small or misshapen breasts. And those same women wouldn't want other women with firm, pert and beautiful breasts to display them since they would fare badly in competition for men.

Women moan enough about men staring at their chests through clothing. Can you imagine what it would be like if they were showing?

Men would initially be staring. And by initially I mean for YEARS. This would make most people pretty uncomfortable and men would get lots of slaps from their wives and girlfriends for checking out other women all the time.

And then breasts would lose their appeal. Personally I think bras and clothes do 95% of women a HUGE favor. Most decent sized breasts are a disappointment when unleased, especially in women over 30.

That would mean women relying on their personalities....I can't see how that would end well. ;-)

[3point14]

So, women have to cover themselves up because men are unable to control themselves? Seems a little unfair to me - if men can't control themselves, then they should wear blindfolds or something similar. Why should one suffer for the shortcomings of another?

What about the (admitedly small) percentage of men who find feet sexually arousing? or hands? or ankles? should all women be covered from head to foot, just because males are unable to deal with the (semi) naked female form?

And, although I'm not a woman, I know a fair few women who do find a well toned male torso to be a sexual thing (to the extent of making ribald comments)

And if it's about not seeing the saggy and the old, then surely only well toned men between 16 and 40 (or whatever) ahould be allowed to be topless, any men over (say) 19 stone should be covered up?

All seems a little hypocritical to me. If you can't act civilised in the presence of someones naked breasts, then the problem is yours, it's not theirs.

[rjh01]

And what about women who have had their breasts removed? Should they be allowed to be topless?

[supercorgi]

What about the (admitedly small) percentage of men who find feet sexually arousing? or hands? or ankles? should all women be covered from head to foot, just because males are unable to deal with the (semi) naked female form?

And, although I'm not a woman, I know a fair few women who do find a well toned male torso to be a sexual thing (to the extent of making ribald comments)

And if it's about not seeing the saggy and the old, then surely only well toned men between 16 and 40 (or whatever) ahould be allowed to be topless, any men over (say) 19 stone should be covered up?

Exactly 3point! The use of the word "obscene" has been thrown around a lot. Well, as a woman, I find it "obscene" to have to look at men with enormous beer bellies and floppy pecs walking around shirtless. It's not particularly attractive and sometimes downright yucky. But, why should men be held to one standard and myself to another? When you come down to it, female breasts are not a sexual organs, they're nutrious organs -- hell, they've got way more purpose than man boobs. Why should they be hidden away and judged "obscene?" And just because you allow something, doesn't mean that everyone is going to do it. But women and men should be held to the same standards and not judged differently on this issue. Anything else smacks of sexism since you're making qualitative judgements based on a person's sex and physical appearance.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I say killing such people will harm society for so many reasons. These reasons are the same as the reasons you do not want to live in such a society.



I can't think of any "objective" reasons for not killing off the weaker worthless people in a society.


The reason I would not want to live in it is because It morally appaling. Not because there are any "objective" reasons a socieity such as that could not function well.

[littleblackpistol]

A few thoughts:

Regarding cultural differences: while British people may not be totally relaxed with public nudity, we tend to find it sniggersome and comical (ever seen a 'Carry On' film? Nude people are vulnerable and FUNNY!), while many Americans seem to find nudity threatening - possibly because of a lack of exposure to nudity in anything but an aggresively sexual context. Indeed, some posters in this thread seem unable to conceive of reacting to any given nude body in anything other than an approving or disapprovingly sexual manner.

During the past few decades it's become almost a tradition at the major British summer sporting events someone, either male or female to 'streak' ie. disrobe completely, leap from the stands and make a dash across the field or court naked and see how far they get before being apprehended by security. Streaking has become a piece of public theatre and very rarely are any seriously disapproving comments over such antics or worries about children being corrupted by the sight of a naked bottom or a dangling penis in the British media. Contrast this with the US media hysteria that followed Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' resulting in a little nipple flashing at the Superbowl a while ago. As long as nudity is only allowed in a only purely sexual context such as strip clubs etc, I think this attitude will persist.

Most British people have been to beaches in Europe where topless or nude sunbathing is alllowed and grown up with topless models displayed in the tabloid press. Tits are still eroticised, but they're just not seen as 'disgusting' or 'obscene' anymore.

As for the 'fat' and 'ugly' commentary that seems to dog this thread - well, some people need to learn that a)fat and ugly are subjective terms - what may seem a overweight to a European will be applauded as the perfect body in say, Carribean or south pacific cultures, b)that others do not exist merely for their own visual pleasure and c)that they will be surprised to learn that being exposed to bodies that don't resemble an airbrushed, photoshopped young model in a wank mag doesn't actually kill you (fill in Nietsche joke as applicable). I could also point out how few western men are in perfect shape and how that doesn't stop the majority of them getting their shirts off in summer(believe me, British workmen have NO modesty whatsoever) or prancing around in ill-fitting shorts and gut-enhancing t-shirts that emphasize their own lack of physical fitness. It never ceases to amaze me how some men reserve the right to critique any given female's physique without ever wondering what women make of their own less than perfect shape. Believe me, boys, you make up the aesthetic landscape too and we DO notice your flaws as well.

I find it really, really odd, that a culture which obsesses over the breast, where breasts are blatantly used to sell everything from cars to beer and where displaying cleavage is seen as compulsary part of female beauty, suddenly becomes prudish and hysterical when one is actually uncovered for non-sexual purposes, such as to cool off or to sunbathe, in real life.

[rjh01]

I can't think of any "objective" reasons for not killing off the weaker worthless people in a society.


The reason I would not want to live in it is because It morally appalling. Not because there are any "objective" reasons a society such as that could not function well.

Lets see now.
1. Many people would have a fear of being next.
2. These people may improve and then contribute to society. I have spent 14 months total in two periods unemployed. Now I earn above average income.
3. Who will contribute to mass murder? The impact of the job on these people.
4. Opinions of next of kin.
5. How it will shape society in other ways.

No one said the reasons had be objective. Saying something is 'morally appalling' contributes nothing to the debate.

[Beerina]

Women should not be allowed (by men) to go topless. This is because women and their sexuality are owned by men, and men have forbidden women from taking off their tops both because it has an emotional arousal effect on men plus men want to protect their property from the prying eyes of other men.

Move to Ontario.

Women are allowed to go topless there.

Allowed...by men.

[Roboramma]

Women have had the democratic right to vote and thus participate in government and law making for quite a while in canada.
Do you have any reason to beleive that it is only men who oppose public toplessness of women?

I certainly don't know one way or the other, just don't want to jump to that conclusion without evidence.

[rjh01]

In nearly all countries there are more male politicians than female ones. Also there are more male judges, lawyers and senior police. So yes it is men who make the law.

[NeilC]

So, women have to cover themselves up because men are unable to control themselves? Seems a little unfair to me - if men can't control themselves, then they should wear blindfolds or something similar. Why should one suffer for the shortcomings of another?

What about the (admitedly small) percentage of men who find feet sexually arousing? or hands? or ankles? should all women be covered from head to foot, just because males are unable to deal with the (semi) naked female form?

And, although I'm not a woman, I know a fair few women who do find a well toned male torso to be a sexual thing (to the extent of making ribald comments)

And if it's about not seeing the saggy and the old, then surely only well toned men between 16 and 40 (or whatever) ahould be allowed to be topless, any men over (say) 19 stone should be covered up?

All seems a little hypocritical to me. If you can't act civilised in the presence of someones naked breasts, then the problem is yours, it's not theirs.


It's not all about that no. There are tribes in the Amazon etc that have their women go bare breasted without being attacked. But in our society these organs have taken on meaning by being covered so there would be a painful period of changew which would have various unpredictable consequences. Since the reasons for effecting the change are nothing more than taking one view of equality to it's logical limit then it's hardly worth bothering with the risk.

Even if it was down to men not being able to control themselves then you'd still need to address that. Thieves shouldn't steal stuff but I don't go about leaving bundles of £50 notes around town.

Wearing blindfolds would result in accidents and preclude driving by anyone except Uri Geller.

Yes I'd rather ugly fat men not take their tops off around town. I'd rather men didn't go topless at all unless in the right circumstances to be honest. Some places do have local laws stopping men doing this.

As I say, it's not just men who don't want this, it's most women too. They might want the right to do it on paper but most wouldn't want it.#

So I see no benefit in changing the law and a few problems. Why bother?

[3point14]

The 'Don't make it fair because change is too painful' argument isn't one I think I'd apply.

You're still left with a system that discriminates unfairly.

It should be down to the individual, as it should be when no-one gets hurt.

Oh, and in my perfect world, if women are free to go topless, I'm afraid I'd be free to look. I'm not completely cold blooded!

Edited for my dodgy spelling

[NeilC]

What's unfair about it? Do you see millions of women clamoring for the right to bare their breasts on the highstreet?

No-one's bothered by it.

I imagine you think it would be OK for everyone to go about naked? How about men with erect penises? How about men with erect penises near primary schools?

[3point14]

Well, clearly some women want to go topless on the beach, or people wouldn't be getting tickets for it. Just because it only affects a small number of people, that means we shouldn't change it? How many women have to want it before it's changed? 10%? 25%? where do you draaw the line??

It's a blatantly discriminatory law, and just because some find the naked human form repulsive or offensive (how wierd is that) that surely doesn't mean others should suffer?

[sphenisc]

I think it should be made compulsory. :)

[gnome]

What's unfair about it? Do you see millions of women clamoring for the right to bare their breasts on the highstreet?

No-one's bothered by it.

I imagine you think it would be OK for everyone to go about naked? How about men with erect penises? How about men with erect penises near primary schools?

You know, there already exist countries in this world where nudity isn't a big deal... and somehow the primary school students have survived.

[HypnoPsi]

1.This has nothing to do with discrimination,it has to do with obscenity.

2.There is no constitutional right to walk around naked. Our country has what you call "obsecenity" laws and the supreme court of the united states as i've mentioned have ruled supporting them.For some reason this reminds me of that Quantum Leap episode where Sam jumps into the body of a returning serviceman who just happens to have a South Korean(?) wife in tow who the local townsfolk are horrified to see hanging out the washing topless, such being acceptable in her culture...

You've got to admit, it's a bit strange that nudity - our natural state - is considered obscene, but there you go. Female toplessness is pretty harmless in itself and on European beaches during the summer it's a fairly normal sight.

Interestingly, in the UK, I hear that there is currently talk of a law being passed that would make it an offence to stop or object to a woman breast feeding her baby in public. Meaning, on the bus, train, etc., and that they can't be asked to leave a restaurant or even to go to the ladies loo to feed the baby privately. And why not? If a baby needs fed on a bus a baby needs fed on a bus. Why should a woman leave a restaruant table (social conversation, letting her meal get cold) to go to the loo to feed her baby? It's bonkers.Let me ask YOU this question...It's a yes or no question now.

Do you want to see obsese women or elderly women butt naked in public everywhere you go? Yes or No?I know you asked this to Gulliamo, but my answer would be...

God, NO! (But beauty is in the eye of the beholder....)

My main cocern with allowing nudity in public would be about it's effect upon children. If you're going to allow women to go naked then you have to allow men to go naked. Is western civilisation really ready for "Mommy? Why is it every time you prance down the street stark naked all the men's pee pees get rock hard?" from a 5 year old.

And what about pedophilia? If infants, children and adolecents were also allowed to walk around naked one imagines that teenagers in particular would get a lot of unwanted attention from people more than a few years too old for them - who might not all be of a given youths particular sexual orientation, creating even more social difficulty.

Nah, accepting nudity in society wouldn't work no matter what.
_
HypnoPsi

[HypnoPsi]

You know, there already exist countries in this world where nudity isn't a big deal... and somehow the primary school students have survived.There exist a lot of countries in the world where nudity isn't a big deal - and, yes, primary (elementary?) school age kids have survived just fine. But that doesn't mean it's suitable for western countries like the UK or US, since it would mean a big cultural change.

Even in the Scandinavian countries were nudity is common in shared gender saunas and the like it's still not the social norm to see people nude.

But the thread, unless I'm mistaken, is about female toplessness. I don't think it's wrong on beaches or private property (or when breastfeeding a baby), but I don't expect to see my bank teller sitting there half-naked as she reads out my account.

I'm mildly skeptical of the whole "effect upon men" issue due to 1) desensitisation and 2) women do not look as good in real life as they are made to look by professional photographers who spend hours getting the make-up and lighting just perfect. (Sorry ladies, but it's true.)

Either way, do we really want it to be the norm that men are completely free to ogle women and girls and/or being distracted from whatever social task they're invovled with? No. Do we want boys ogling older girls and women when they're supposed to be busy learning, etc.,? Again, no.
_
HypnoPsi

[gnome]

But the thread, unless I'm mistaken, is about female toplessness. I don't think it's wrong on beaches or private property (or when breastfeeding a baby), but I don't expect to see my bank teller sitting there half-naked as she reads out my account.
I am certain that the banks are aware most people feel that way, and would require their tellers to dress professionally. I don't think anything anyone's proposed would change that.

Either way, do we really want it to be the norm that men are completely free to ogle women and girls and/or being distracted from whatever social task they're invovled with? No. Do we want boys ogling older girls and women when they're supposed to be busy learning, etc.,? Again, no.
_
HypnoPsi
Well, they do already... you could use the same argument to require that the girls and women wear Burqa's, too... anything uncovered can and will be ogled.

[HypnoPsi]

Well, they do already... you could use the same argument to require that the girls and women wear Burqa's, too... anything uncovered can and will be ogled.That is actually an interesting argument you've made. The gentry of days gone by used to believe that females showing their ankles was shocking and unbecoming of a young lady!! I believe shirt-sleeves had to be right down to the wrists as well and blouses buttoned right up to the chin!

So, what's so much that it becomes a distraction? Lot's of men like a nice pair of legs on a woman and mini-skirts are fairly common without having caused a collapse of civilisation.

Since toplessness is already fairly common on most beaches during the summer, I don't think it would be such a big deal if it became more common in other social situations for women to go topless. But full nudity? Nah, that would not work at all.

Over in the US, you guys have this bizzarre law whereby those krazy KKK guys and neo-nazis are allowed to dress up and burn crosses, etc., so long as it's not seen by anyone who might be offended, yes?

Well, how about a progressive policy being that female toplessness is not considered obsence or an act of public indecency (and surely it isn't) but if a child under the age of 16 should be present at a garden party or something then it's a no-no. (Given the size of some bikinis the point seems a little moot lol!)
_
HypnoPsi

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Lets see now.
1. Many people would have a fear of being next.

People have many fears in society already today.


2. These people may improve and then contribute to society. I have spent 14 months total in two periods unemployed. Now I earn above average income.

Let's say the people who would be killed are mentally ill and have ZERO chance of recovery according to medical doctors.

How about then?


3. Who will contribute to mass murder? The impact of the job on these people.

The same people who kill convicts? Vollunteers? It does not really matter.



4. Opinions of next of kin.

We don't care about the next of kin when we kill people on death row,Why should people who are mentally ill be any different?

5. How it will shape society in other ways.


What other ways?


No one said the reasons had be objective. Saying something is 'morally appalling' contributes nothing to the debate.


Incorrect...If the reasons are "subjective" then "morally appalling" is a subjective reason for not having such a society considering that's a subjective opinion.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

For some reason this reminds me of that Quantum Leap episode where Sam jumps into the body of a returning serviceman who just happens to have a South Korean(?) wife in tow who the local townsfolk are horrified to see hanging out the washing topless, such being acceptable in her culture...

You've got to admit, it's a bit strange that nudity - our natural state - is considered obscene, but there you go. Female toplessness is pretty harmless in itself and on European beaches during the summer it's a fairly normal sight.

Interestingly, in the UK, I hear that there is currently talk of a law being passed that would make it an offence to stop or object to a woman breast feeding her baby in public. Meaning, on the bus, train, etc., and that they can't be asked to leave a restaurant or even to go to the ladies loo to feed the baby privately. And why not? If a baby needs fed on a bus a baby needs fed on a bus. Why should a woman leave a restaruant table (social conversation, letting her meal get cold) to go to the loo to feed her baby? It's bonkers.I know you asked this to Gulliamo, but my answer would be...

God, NO! (But beauty is in the eye of the beholder....)

My main cocern with allowing nudity in public would be about it's effect upon children. If you're going to allow women to go naked then you have to allow men to go naked. Is western civilisation really ready for "Mommy? Why is it every time you prance down the street stark naked all the men's pee pees get rock hard?" from a 5 year old.

And what about pedophilia? If infants, children and adolecents were also allowed to walk around naked one imagines that teenagers in particular would get a lot of unwanted attention from people more than a few years too old for them - who might not all be of a given youths particular sexual orientation, creating even more social difficulty.

Nah, accepting nudity in society wouldn't work no matter what.
_
HypnoPsi


Let's see..

1.On beaches people have a choice to avoid the nudity by NOT GOING TO THE NUDE BEACH. They would not have such a choice in other more public places like a bus-stop or a sidewalk where they walk everyday.

2.As for the comment about breast-feeding...Well there's this new invention..amazing thing it is. It's something called a BOTTLE.
The woman puts her(own if she wants) milk into the bottle where she can feed the baby anywhere anytime without whipping out her breasts.


Think people...

[HypnoPsi]

Let's see..

1.On beaches people have a choice to avoid the nudity by NOT GOING TO THE NUDE BEACH. They would not have such a choice in other more public places like a bus-stop or a sidewalk where they walk everyday.I agree with this entirely. I think a lot of parents would (and do) object to their children seeing topless women on beaches. Family sensitive areas with a reasonable dress-code on beaches make perfect sense to me.2.As for the comment about breast-feeding...Well there's this new invention..amazing thing it is. It's something called a BOTTLE.
The woman puts her(own if she wants) milk into the bottle where she can feed the baby anywhere anytime without whipping out her breasts.


Think people...Nah... and I have thought about that one. Breasts are for feeding babies. It's that simple. Objecting to it doesn't make sense. What if the baby won't take to a bottle? Maybe the mother only ever breast feeds? Why should a mother breast feeding her baby on a bus be something that people should think is wrong?
_
HypnoPsi

[rjh01]

In Australia a woman may breast feed per baby in public without fear of harassment. I have seen many such woman feeding their babies in public.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I agree with this entirely. I think a lot of parents would (and do) object to their children seeing topless women on beaches. Family sensitive areas with a reasonable dress-code on beaches make perfect sense to me.Nah... and I have thought about that one. Breasts are for feeding babies. It's that simple. Objecting to it doesn't make sense. What if the baby won't take to a bottle? Maybe the mother only ever breast feeds? Why should a mother breast feeding her baby on a bus be something that people should think is wrong?
_
HypnoPsi


Becuase most people don't want to see it.

Women should feed their babies before taking them on a bus.

[TheGuyThat]

Fear not it will probably soon become fashionable to show breast in everyday life. The line is becoming increasingly more blurred due to the advance of fashion. Often in fashion shows the breasts are exposed and it is becoming ever more present in society. I don't care either way. Although I would be adverse to seeing my grandmother, mother or sisters topless.

[HypnoPsi]

Becuase most people don't want to see it.What evidence do you have that most people would object to breast feeding in public?Women should feed their babies before taking them on a bus.And what if the baby decides it's not hungry until it's on the bus?

I can't think of any legitimate reason for anyone to object to a woman feeding her baby in public. I, for one, wouldn't bat an eyelid.
_
HypnoPsi

[brodski]

Becuase most people don't want to see it.

Women should feed their babies before taking them on a bus.
and if "most people" didn't want to see a gay couple walking hand in hand?Should that be considderd "obscene" as well? I mean, they can hold hands in private can't they?

[roger]

Either way, do we really want it to be the norm that men are completely free to ogle women and girls and/or being distracted from whatever social task they're invovled with? No. Do we want boys ogling older girls and women when they're supposed to be busy learning, etc.,? Again, no.
_
HypnoPsiAbsolutely not. Which is why we should follow the lead of our Arab brothers and remove women from all spheres of public life. I recall oggling (dressed) women in my classes. Clearly we should eliminate this problem by banning women from school, rather than unreasonably expecting me to be responsible for my own behavior.

[HypnoPsi]

Absolutely not. Which is why we should follow the lead of our Arab brothers and remove women from all spheres of public life. I recall oggling (dressed) women in my classes. Clearly we should eliminate this problem by banning women from school, rather than unreasonably expecting me to be responsible for my own behavior.Actually, there was a recent experiment done which showed men do become irrational around a beautiful woman. As I recall the men were given two offers - something like take £5 now or wait a week and get £10. The men in the experimental group, having been showed pics of some highly attractive females sought, by a good margin, the instant gratification option. (If someone can find this, could they post the link as it was reported in the press fairly recently.)

Would that irrationality get worse if they were all walking around topless all the time? I think it just might.

Besides, I'm not so much talking about fellows like you and I as I'm talking about kids. Young lads between say 8 and 13 are considerably more irraional than older men and haven't quite sussed out how to control their emotions just yet and be completely responsible for themselves. Some never will/do.

Some degree of decorum is necessary in society.
_
HypnoPsi

[roger]

I grant your points hypnoPsi, but we have emperical evidence that people do fine in less clothed states, and we have emperical evidence that societies can handle less clothing (I'm guessing you don't notice 8 year old boys acting irrationally when they see a naked ankle, and you would have 200 years ago).

I don't have a horse in this race, as I don't care too much if we have to wear clothes or not (I'd rather rail against men's business clothes, entirely impractical wear), but since this is the topic, we know from evidence that there aren't any big problems with nudity once society becomes accustomed to it.

[Pauliesonne]

me luv da boobies!

[ktesibios]

I grant your points hypnoPsi, but we have emperical evidence that people do fine in less clothed states, and we have emperical evidence that societies can handle less clothing (I'm guessing you don't notice 8 year old boys acting irrationally when they see a naked ankle, and you would have 200 years ago).

I don't have a horse in this race, as I don't care too much if we have to wear clothes or not (I'd rather rail against men's business clothes, entirely impractical wear), but since this is the topic, we know from evidence that there aren't any big problems with nudity once society becomes accustomed to it.

I'm tempted to predict that there would be a sudden uptick in the rate of traffic accidents and on-the-job injuries for men who work outdoors, which would gradually settle back to normal as people got used to it.

I wonder if there's any empirical data about that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What evidence do you have that most people would object to breast feeding in public?And what if the baby decides it's not hungry until it's on the bus?
HypnoPsi



What evidence is there most people don't want to see other people deficating in public places?

It's common sense.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally Posted by HypnoPsi :
What evidence do you have that most people would object to breast feeding in public?And what if the baby decides it's not hungry until it's on the bus?
HypnoPsiWhat evidence is there most people don't want to see other people deficating in public places?

It's common sense.What possible comparison can there be between someone defecating in public and a woman breast feeding her baby on a bus!!??
_
HypnoPsi

[rjh01]

It is common sense that the world is flat.

Dustin's arguments are a straw man.

There is no legitimate argument against allowing women to breast feed their babies in public. It happens in Australia without any problems.

[Zbu]

I think all of Dustin's arguments revolve around that without some controlling force, mankind will just turn into creatures and not obey any codes because they all come from our invisible friends. The reality is that women should be free to go topless just as men are and whomever has a problem with that simply has a problem with that. Rape occurs regardless and if we're going to hold down women just because of what men might do, then that leads to a startling precedent for which we can limit anything under 'what men might do.'

Listen: men will stare but it'll become commonplace. The erotic side will still exist. Procreation will continue, maybe even more so. But in freeing the breast, maybe we can get away from this stupid American idea that sex is bad by taking away the 'dirtyness' aspect which has held everybody down so long and finally just move onto more important things.

Sex isn't wrong, and topless women aren't going to bring on the end of the world. And if everybody went bottomless, the world wouldn't end either. Big bloody deal.

[The_Fire]

It is common sense that the world is flat.

Dustin's arguments are a straw man.

There is no legitimate argument against allowing women to breast feed their babies in public. It happens in Australia without any problems.

Denmark as well......

[Zbu]

I just wish America would get over it. The saddest thing is that we're all ashamed of our bodies because we all fear we're not perfect. Damn it, why can't we just get it through a freaking head that perfection is not an attainable goal and just live our lives happily? It's days like this that I think the reason we're all miserable is because corporate America likes to keep us neurotic so we'll blow money to 'improve' that which does not need improving.

Damn, it's frustating. What is such the big deal, when did America become so damn dependent on perfection? It's just so utterly pointless.

[/blathering rant]

[afree87]

The poll made me forget about whatever it was we were supposed to be discussing.

[DRBUZZ0]

From my perspective, as a guy, I really don't think I could ever walk around naked in public.

I think it's different for women though, because it's more acceptable in our society for a woman to carry a purse.

If I'm going to walk around naked, where the hell am I supposed to put my wallet? Just carry it in my hand?

How about my cell phone? I don't have a belt to clip it to. Wearing a belt with no pants would look ridiculous. And I am NOT going to wear a fanny pack.

I guess I could wear a backpack, but that seems a bit overkill for my phone, wallet, carkeys and change....

So there ya go...

-Steve

[articulett]

Lady Liberty support breast exposure. Donald Rumsfield is aghast, of course.

[Serenity]

From my perspective, as a guy, I really don't think I could ever walk around naked in public.

I think it's different for women though, because it's more acceptable in our society for a woman to carry a purse.

If I'm going to walk around naked, where the hell am I supposed to put my wallet? Just carry it in my hand?

How about my cell phone? I don't have a belt to clip it to. Wearing a belt with no pants would look ridiculous. And I am NOT going to wear a fanny pack.

I guess I could wear a backpack, but that seems a bit overkill for my phone, wallet, carkeys and change....

So there ya go...

-Steve
Isn't a purse a European wallet? - Overheard on Seinfeld

[rjh01]

Put everything in a bag.

[Zbu]

Backpacks! Plus you could resemble many a University of Michigan student before the Naked Mile was banned. ;)

[Jesus Baby Daddy]

Yay for Boobies!
(yes, that means I'm pro t itty)

[Mercifull]

Im only 21 so my answer is probably bias to being purvy but yeah women should be allowed to go topless. lol

[AmyWilson]

I would love to go shirtless/topless outside once, to wash the car, etc, but my husband says the guy neighbors would be all over me like white on snow. :)

It's true. :)

[emperorchaos]

I would love to go shirtless/topless outside once, to wash the car, etc, but my husband says the guy neighbors would be all over me like white on snow. :)

It's true. :)

This whole "It's true" bit. I think you're a robot. And robots don't have breasts. I don't think anyway.

[Soapy Sam]

I would love to go shirtless/topless outside once, to wash the car, etc, but my husband says the guy neighbors would be all over me like white on snow. :)

It's true. :)

Go on. Give it a try. You know you want to.:eye-poppi

[Piggy]

Check your local and state laws. You might be surprised.

When I lived in a hippie college town in Florida, USA, one store had a naked discount day -- come in naked, get a discount.

The laws against nudity only covered lewd nudity.

Anyone remember Andrew Martinez, Berkeley's "naked guy" who spent his whole day nude while attending classes?