Response title
This is preview!
Move this topic
So here's the question... Should Women Be Allowed By Law To Show Their Breasts in Public?
What do YOU think? Take the poll and then let us know WHY you voted the way you voted.
http://polldaddy.com/poll/572314'
Here's what we think about it...
And here's the detailed version from our daily Live Video show... (it's a little longer, but great arguments on both sides)
All this started when our featured author for the Ask Dan and Jennifer Censorship & Sexual Repression Channel - Christ Pro Erotic wrote this great article: Going Topless? The Naked Truth About Women and Bare Breasts
So chime in below and tell us what YOU think. Is it right? Is it wrong?
Any honest, heartfelt answer is OK, all we ask is that you take a moment to truly think about this and ask yourself: is it fair, or is this discrimination against women?
Should this even be a legal issue, or is it an issue of personal preference that one group enforces against another unfairly?
http://polldaddy.com/poll/572314'
Here's what we think about it...
And here's the detailed version from our daily Live Video show... (it's a little longer, but great arguments on both sides)
All this started when our featured author for the Ask Dan and Jennifer Censorship & Sexual Repression Channel - Christ Pro Erotic wrote this great article: Going Topless? The Naked Truth About Women and Bare Breasts
Any honest, heartfelt answer is OK, all we ask is that you take a moment to truly think about this and ask yourself: is it fair, or is this discrimination against women?
Should this even be a legal issue, or is it an issue of personal preference that one group enforces against another unfairly?
Replies(49)
You know I haven't gotten a chance to see the live show until just now. I just wanted to say I agree that it shouldn't be an issue of "I don't want to see it".
Now, I just wanted to say, I understand that Jennifer couldn't show anything because of the messed up regulations and stuff.. but, Dan, come on. Why couldn't we see your bare chest :D hehehe just kidding, sorry. I'm kind of ornry today.
But seriously, yes, I agree with you guys. I mean, if a woman wanted to go topless at a beach or something that's probably different than going to Toys R Us or your church/synagogue/temple/whatever you call it... you know. There is a place and time for anything. "No shirt, No shoes, No service" is a sign we see at public places, especially near pools or water parks. Why? Because the proprietors of the business have decided that male bare chests and bare feet (a long known erogenous zone and fetish focus) are not appropriate for the time and place.
But I have a question for Dan. You said you don't want to see women walking around with bare breasts because "they may be unpleasant to me but I won't look." So, you must have some superhuman ability to turn your head and look the other way. It seems most Americans cannot not look at something they don't like. You know, like the "moral majority" leaders coming down on pornography, after much research on looking at it for hours... Hmmm..
And finally, one last comment. The guy who said he's not afraid of female nipples but afraid of getting caught staring at them. I understand what he's saying, but if she's going around topless, she wants to be looked at (just like the purple spikey hair, and bull ring through the nose).
Well, I'm off to show off my body by wearing capri shorts, a teeshirt, and sandals. Maybe I should be arrested for public indecency.
OK, I know I said I was done, but this is really the last thing... If you look at a nudist resort it's not a sexual thing. In fact, many of these establishments have rules against pierced nipples or genitals while attending the resort. It is simply a naturalist type of thing. Perhaps if we all looked at the world with a little less scrutiny and "morals" we could relax and have more fun. Maybe that's why people have high blood pressure and heart attacks and such, because people are so worried about everything that everyone else is doing.
OK, I'm out!
Now, I just wanted to say, I understand that Jennifer couldn't show anything because of the messed up regulations and stuff.. but, Dan, come on. Why couldn't we see your bare chest :D hehehe just kidding, sorry. I'm kind of ornry today.
But seriously, yes, I agree with you guys. I mean, if a woman wanted to go topless at a beach or something that's probably different than going to Toys R Us or your church/synagogue/temple/whatever you call it... you know. There is a place and time for anything. "No shirt, No shoes, No service" is a sign we see at public places, especially near pools or water parks. Why? Because the proprietors of the business have decided that male bare chests and bare feet (a long known erogenous zone and fetish focus) are not appropriate for the time and place.
But I have a question for Dan. You said you don't want to see women walking around with bare breasts because "they may be unpleasant to me but I won't look." So, you must have some superhuman ability to turn your head and look the other way. It seems most Americans cannot not look at something they don't like. You know, like the "moral majority" leaders coming down on pornography, after much research on looking at it for hours... Hmmm..
And finally, one last comment. The guy who said he's not afraid of female nipples but afraid of getting caught staring at them. I understand what he's saying, but if she's going around topless, she wants to be looked at (just like the purple spikey hair, and bull ring through the nose).
Well, I'm off to show off my body by wearing capri shorts, a teeshirt, and sandals. Maybe I should be arrested for public indecency.
OK, I know I said I was done, but this is really the last thing... If you look at a nudist resort it's not a sexual thing. In fact, many of these establishments have rules against pierced nipples or genitals while attending the resort. It is simply a naturalist type of thing. Perhaps if we all looked at the world with a little less scrutiny and "morals" we could relax and have more fun. Maybe that's why people have high blood pressure and heart attacks and such, because people are so worried about everything that everyone else is doing.
OK, I'm out!
Leave a comment on k. in cleveland's reply
Originally posted by: K. in Cleveland
Now, I just wanted to say, I understand that Jennifer couldn't show anything because of the messed up regulations and stuff.. but, Dan, come on. Why couldn't we see your bare chest :D hehehe just kidding, sorry. I'm kind of ornry today.
I'd have to charge you guys $2.99/minute to watch though. --Dan :)
But wait, there's more. We're planning (tentatively for now) a special behind the scenes special where we see what happens when a straight (but very metro) and particularly good looking guy (lol) gets his eyebrows waxed. Remember, "friends don't let friends have unibrows!".
For some fun on that topic, check out this talk radio clip from Charles Adler Online, syndicated throughout Canada. After you get the intro, the impatient can scroll to the 5:00 minute mark.
Originally posted by: K. in Cleveland
But I have a question for Dan. You said you don't want to see women walking around with bare breasts because "they may be unpleasant to me but I won't look."
Perhaps I misspoke or wasn't clear enough. I love beautiful female breasts. They have brought me untold joy. My only qualm I think was saying that it may take some of the magic away, some of the magic that is there in part because of the forbidden nature of female breasts today. But somehow I think the magic will still be there.
Originally posted by: K. in Cleveland
So, you must have some superhuman ability to turn your head and look the other way. It seems most Americans cannot not look at something they don't like. You know, like the "moral majority" leaders coming down on pornography, after much research on looking at it for hours... Hmmm..
No kidding! This is the same reasons (in my opinion) that people watch the news commentary shows and yell at the TV in frustration, day after day after day after day! AAARrgghhh! But hey, whatever floats it for them.
Originally posted by: K. in Cleveland
OK, I know I said I was done, but this is really the last thing... If you look at a nudist resort it's not a sexual thing. In fact, many of these establishments have rules against pierced nipples or genitals while attending the resort. It is simply a naturalist type of thing. Perhaps if we all looked at the world with a little less scrutiny and "morals" we could relax and have more fun. Maybe that's why people have high blood pressure and heart attacks and such, because people are so worried about everything that everyone else is doing.
No kidding. As we keep saying in this video and others, various people choose certain preferred behaviors, attire, etc. and label it "good morals" in a very condescending, holier-than-thou way. So basically they define anyone who doesn't go to their church or who doesn't put their woman in a head-to-toe covering to have bad morals. Perhaps we could all learn to respect one another and focus, and agree that things that harm others are actually the "bad" things.
And on tomorrow's rant, we'll tackle the "sex and violence" myth for TV. lol
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
Originally posted by: Dan And JenniferI have a paypal account! Tell me where to send the money :D Man, I really need to be spanked for that.. oh wait, this isn't the right forum for that.. nevermind ;)
I'd have to charge you guys $2.99/minute to watch though. --Dan :)
Originally posted by: Dan And JenniferOK, now I gotta give kudos to any man who gets waxed. I love that scene in "The 40 Year Old Virgin" with Steve Carell... but seriously, I've tried waxing and well, I'm not into pain.. although the end result usually makes it worth it. But hey, a little manscaping is nice :)
But wait, there's more. We're planning a special behind the scenes special where we see what happens when a straight (but very metro) and particularly good looking guy (lol) gets his eyebrows waxed. Remember, "friends don't let friends have unibrows!".
Originally posted by: Dan And JenniferI understand where you are coming from. And... well, I can see it going both ways. I mean, like you guys said, ankles were once taboo for women to show, but now we don't think a thing of seeing shorts-clad women. Yet, I don't know how much sexual attraction there is to ankles for most people. I'm sure with some foot fetish folks the ankle is also attractive, and for them, I'm sure the magic is not lost on being able to see women's legs, feet, and ankles.
Perhaps I misspoke or wasn't clear enough. I love beautiful female breasts. They have brought me untold joy. My only qualm I think was saying that it may take some of the magic away, some of the magic that is there in part because of the forbidden nature of female breasts today. But somehow I think the magic will still be there.
Originally posted by: Dan And JenniferAhh, the world would be a much better place if swingers we in charge. That's why my vote is for Dan and Jennifer in 2008! :)
As we keep saying in this video and others, various people choose certain preferred behaviors, attire, etc. and label it "good morals" in a very condescending, holier-than-thou way. So basically they define anyone who doesn't go to their church or who doesn't put their woman in a head-to-toe covering to have bad morals. Perhaps we could all learn to respect one another and focus, and agree that things that harm others are actually the "bad" things.
By the way, that was a nice audio clip, thanks
Leave a comment on k. in cleveland's reply
"But seriously, yes, I agree with you guys. I mean, if a woman wanted to go topless at a beach or something that's probably different than going to Toys R Us or your church/synagogue/temple/whatever you call it... you know. There is a place and time for anything. "No shirt, No shoes, No service" is a sign we see at public places, especially near pools or water parks. Why? Because the proprietors of the business have decided that male bare chests and bare feet (a long known erogenous zone and fetish focus) are not appropriate for the time and place.J"--K in Cleveland
And see for this to happen--topless at a beach or an appropriate site--it would require the government to treat the populace like adults instead of like children. Sadly, there are some out there who are like kids and haven't truly grown up and understood proper behavior, but that's another story. For those who can and should know what is appropriate reasons to go topless is up to the person and should be up to the person. In an ideal world I think it works provided those who see it do not go ape if they see a part of the body which is covered most of the time.
Leave a comment on ed_christ_pro_erotic's reply
Boobs are great, aren't they...
3 years ago
Hi there, greetings from Poland!
I love women's breasts(boobs or tits), but there is a bigger picture to this cause.
Legally it shouldn't be prohibited, but that would cause massive global effects (famous butterfly effect). Imagine a climbing up to the sky number of car crashes and slowing down of world's economy. All that because of men staring at this 2 items of affection, remaining them of their happiest time in life (childhood).
I love women's breasts(boobs or tits), but there is a bigger picture to this cause.
Legally it shouldn't be prohibited, but that would cause massive global effects (famous butterfly effect). Imagine a climbing up to the sky number of car crashes and slowing down of world's economy. All that because of men staring at this 2 items of affection, remaining them of their happiest time in life (childhood).
Leave a comment on peter_from_poland's reply
Should Women Show Breasts?
3 years ago
I would say the ultimate test of whether something is obscene is would we expose our children to it.
A female breast? Who ever heard of shoving a womens breast in the face of a child or baby. Oh right, that's called breast feeding! I guess it does pass the test.
That exposing a womens breast in public is a crime is nonsense!
A female breast? Who ever heard of shoving a womens breast in the face of a child or baby. Oh right, that's called breast feeding! I guess it does pass the test.
That exposing a womens breast in public is a crime is nonsense!
Leave a comment on shaneola's reply
Baby, Soon2b Voter, For Overturning Decency Law
3 years ago
I WANT MY LUNCH WHEN I WANT MY LUNCH! WHOEVER'S BOOB I AM GETTING MY MEAL FROM IS A BOOB WORTH EXPOSING. MY PAPA LACTATES, SO HIS BOOBS ARE LEGAL. UH, I MIGHT HAVE THIS BACKWARDS...I'M STILL LEARNING. -BABY4BOOBY:mad:
Leave a comment on shaneola's reply
Way too much federal law...
3 years ago
I think this should be something that should be decided ideally on a regional basis. It's completely wrong for our federal government to decide what marriage is, whether or not breasts are appropriate for public, what to do about prostituion or polygamy, or any other matter that has to do with human preference.
Our states were set up as independent governments so that we could decide these things for ourselves, and I think that the state that I live in should have the right to say "Boobs are allowed in specific areas unless prohibited by a private property owner" while another state says "No breast exposure EVER" and yet another says "Go for it, anytime anywhere!"
People with similar preferences that are important to them generally migrate to areas where they will feel happy and comfortable. So bring on the state legislation!
Our states were set up as independent governments so that we could decide these things for ourselves, and I think that the state that I live in should have the right to say "Boobs are allowed in specific areas unless prohibited by a private property owner" while another state says "No breast exposure EVER" and yet another says "Go for it, anytime anywhere!"
People with similar preferences that are important to them generally migrate to areas where they will feel happy and comfortable. So bring on the state legislation!
Leave a comment on bethanysmith's reply
Originally posted by: Dan And Jennifer
So here's the question... Should Women Be Allowed By Law To Show Their Breasts in Public?...
NO!
If women walked around topless how could I get people to pay $$$ to see mine???
:D:D:D
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria.
Leave a comment on snakebabe's reply
Originally posted by: K. in Cleveland
…. if a woman wanted to go topless at a beach or something that's probably different than going to Toys R Us or your church/synagogue/temple/whatever you call it... you know. There is a place and time for anything. "No shirt, No shoes, No service" is a sign we see at public places, especially near pools or water parks. Why? Because the proprietors of the business have decided that male bare chests and bare feet (a long known erogenous zone and fetish focus) are not appropriate for the time and place. ….!
I agree with K :), I really can’t say if this is the answer but it’s a simple and not an “in your face” kind of answer. Maybe a good place to start at the very least. I do not see anything wrong with nudity but in this country I do see how allowing it to be without any restrictions could cause turmoil. So let proprietors of each establishment decide what is allowed inside their place of business and in public government places keep your shirt on just to simply play nice with everyone one.
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria.
Leave a comment on snakebabe's reply
I agree that private property owners should be absolutely allowed to set their own rules, but in your own home, your own land, and in public ground (which is partially owned by you, it's public paid by taxes) you should be free to do as you please so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
And no, exposing your breasts does not harm anyone.
And no, exposing your breasts does not harm anyone.
Leave a comment on exavion's reply
Update: Planned Protest On August 23rd
3 years ago
Found on World Sex News: On the 72nd anniversary of a woman's right to vote in America according to the 19th Amendment of the Constitution a national protest is scheduled for women to go topless. Check this out:
Source GoTopless.org:
"Across America, topless women and men will peacefully rally in the streets, parks, on the beaches of their towns and cities. "
Okay, now it's going the next level; what will you do? Will you participate or will you just join in silent solidarity?
Ed
Moderator, CPE
Source GoTopless.org:
Okay, now it's going the next level; what will you do? Will you participate or will you just join in silent solidarity?
Ed
Moderator, CPE
Leave a comment on ed_christ_pro_erotic's reply
Speaking For My Husband
3 years ago
:mad:
Originally posted by: Dan And JenniferMy husband is from chicago and has always been mad that they have never had a nude beach.we are both naturists and see the human body as art,which should be admired not hidden as the governments demands.The US government should do it's job helping [poverty,education,crime,stopping wars!!!!!!,etc],instead of trying to make laws for our bedroom.BREASTS are just breasts,just different sizes.A month ago a woman was told to leave a government building because she was breast feeding her baby,ok it's only 2008.Woman wearing a bikini top makes them look sexy and perfect.Take off the top and there not as sexy.Wake UP!!
So here's the question... Should Women Be Allowed By Law To Show Their Breasts in Public?What do YOU think? Take the poll and then let us know WHY you voted the way you voted.
http://polldaddy.com/poll/572314'
Here's what we think about it...
And here's the detailed version from our daily Live Video show...
All this started when our featured author for the Ask Dan and Jennifer Censorship & Sexual Repression Channel - Christ Pro Erotic wrote this great article: Going Topless? The Naked Truth About Women and Bare BreastsSo chime in below and tell us what YOU think. Is it right? Is it wrong?
Any honest, heartfelt answer is OK, all we ask is that you take a moment to truly think about this and ask yourself: is it fair, or is this discrimination against women?
Should this even be a legal issue, or is it an issue of personal preference that one group enforces against another unfairly?
Leave a comment on sub_in_tenn's reply
go to jordanmatter.com go to view uncovered then click on the last photo and in the background you will see a mother covering her son's eyes. I mean come on he's going to see them sooner or later so why not get it over with so you dont have to worry about him.
Leave a comment on dude123188's reply
Originally posted by: dude123188
go to jordanmatter.com go to view uncovered then click on the last photo and in the background you will see a mother covering her son's eyes. I mean come on he's going to see them sooner or later so why not get it over with so you dont have to worry about him.
Hi Dude, thanks for the note, hadn't seen that picture. Do you by chance have the direct link to it to share with us here?
Thanks!
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
Ok, blame Dan for my rant on this topic. As a new member, he invited me to comment on this topic.
First off, ladies, why expose the goods before it's time? I've noticed skirts getting shorter, thongs exposed for the world to see and tops.....well, my socks have more fabric in them. There is something a bit mysterious and intriguing about sitting across from a woman who's fully clothed, still sexy and fashionable, and wondering what's underneath. The Historian in me looks at the old paintings of women in Victorian era dresses, with just the right amount of cleavage shown, and thinks, "WOW!" She had to use her charm to be more seductive.
Beyond that thought, there can be a time and a place for a women to expose her breasts. Should the cops ticket a woman breastfeeding her child? No. Should they slap the pervert upside the head when he's drooling over her as she does it? Maybe just taser him. Do I want to look at a woman walking around topless while I'm in Church .... depends on the sermon.
This is where common sense, which I realize is not all that common, comes into play. Do I think that it's appropriate at the beach, by the pool, in your back yard, etc. Yes. Is it appropriate in a Church, restaurant, even the mall, etc? NO! The laws currently on the book, take reasonable discretion out of the equation because some people are not reasonable.
Part of our society's fascination with breasts is the taboo nature of them. I was an exchange student to France. After the first couple of days at the beach, talking to female friends; I'll be honest, I stopped staring. Did I take a peek and appreciate a nice set of breasts? YES! Did I do the drooling bit? Maybe a little, but I was 17. It amazed me how confident some young women I met there were. They might not have been the most beautiful, but their confidence more than made up for it.
Until we, as a society, can maturely address this topic without condemnation from the Right and reasonable limitation applied by those without common sense; I understand the laws on the books. Personally, I think we should begin easing these restrictions. Women should be permitted to go topless on the beach, pool, in their own yards starting at age 18. Our society would go a bit crazy at first but, given time things would calm down.
First off, ladies, why expose the goods before it's time? I've noticed skirts getting shorter, thongs exposed for the world to see and tops.....well, my socks have more fabric in them. There is something a bit mysterious and intriguing about sitting across from a woman who's fully clothed, still sexy and fashionable, and wondering what's underneath. The Historian in me looks at the old paintings of women in Victorian era dresses, with just the right amount of cleavage shown, and thinks, "WOW!" She had to use her charm to be more seductive.
Beyond that thought, there can be a time and a place for a women to expose her breasts. Should the cops ticket a woman breastfeeding her child? No. Should they slap the pervert upside the head when he's drooling over her as she does it? Maybe just taser him. Do I want to look at a woman walking around topless while I'm in Church .... depends on the sermon.
This is where common sense, which I realize is not all that common, comes into play. Do I think that it's appropriate at the beach, by the pool, in your back yard, etc. Yes. Is it appropriate in a Church, restaurant, even the mall, etc? NO! The laws currently on the book, take reasonable discretion out of the equation because some people are not reasonable.
Part of our society's fascination with breasts is the taboo nature of them. I was an exchange student to France. After the first couple of days at the beach, talking to female friends; I'll be honest, I stopped staring. Did I take a peek and appreciate a nice set of breasts? YES! Did I do the drooling bit? Maybe a little, but I was 17. It amazed me how confident some young women I met there were. They might not have been the most beautiful, but their confidence more than made up for it.
Until we, as a society, can maturely address this topic without condemnation from the Right and reasonable limitation applied by those without common sense; I understand the laws on the books. Personally, I think we should begin easing these restrictions. Women should be permitted to go topless on the beach, pool, in their own yards starting at age 18. Our society would go a bit crazy at first but, given time things would calm down.
Leave a comment on brock_danjenn's reply
Rights vs. Safety
3 years ago
As a man, I personally wouldn't want to see boobs everywhere I go, but I suppose in a world where men and women are (supposedly) equal, women should be allowed to go topless, just as men are.
However, I do think that there is a method to the madness. In most species (including humans) males exist to provide sperm to females to start the process of reproduction, hence the sex-drive that men are known for. Since for most straight males, female breasts are arousing, if women were to walk around topless, I think some women (who so chose to go without a shirt/underwear) might experience a lot more sexual harassment (or maybe even rape?). Sort of an "out of sight, out of mind" thing.
Certainly, if women are looking to "advertise", then sure, by all means whatever. But maybe if a woman didn't wear a shirt because it was hot outside and she was working or something, it may leave her open to unwelcome advances.
However, I do think that there is a method to the madness. In most species (including humans) males exist to provide sperm to females to start the process of reproduction, hence the sex-drive that men are known for. Since for most straight males, female breasts are arousing, if women were to walk around topless, I think some women (who so chose to go without a shirt/underwear) might experience a lot more sexual harassment (or maybe even rape?). Sort of an "out of sight, out of mind" thing.
Certainly, if women are looking to "advertise", then sure, by all means whatever. But maybe if a woman didn't wear a shirt because it was hot outside and she was working or something, it may leave her open to unwelcome advances.
Leave a comment on yesvirginia_danjenn's reply
Woot?
3 years ago
In the 80's a plus sized avowed lesbian feminist removed her top on an extremely hot day in downtown Guelph, Ontario and was immediately arrested for indecent exposure. The lower Court upheld the charge and convicted her of indecent exposure. The top Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that breasts are a) organs of the skin and not genitalia b) are secondary sex characteristics like facial hair on men and c) it was not illegal to bare breast in public.
There is a distinction between legal and not illegal. Legal is a law created by our Legislators. Not illegal means the act does not violate a law.
To banish breasts would, legally speaking, be the same as banishing facial hair or lowered voices.
Has Ontario become a hotbed of bare boobs? No. People are pragmatic in most cases and bare on the beach and even then not all that much; damn you Puritans.
In Europe where body culture is more advanced we find fewer sexual predators and violators because the taboo and therefore the desire to offend is reduced by the lack of mystery. Nude beaches abound and people are happy and tan and fat or thin or hairy or not as they choose.
In short, boobs... who cares? Well it seems that H&M and La Senza both have a problem with lactating women properly feeding thier infants the best food available so I guess some still do. BTW, both retailers are suffering negative results in the media and from lactating mothers across Canada.
Cheers.
There is a distinction between legal and not illegal. Legal is a law created by our Legislators. Not illegal means the act does not violate a law.
To banish breasts would, legally speaking, be the same as banishing facial hair or lowered voices.
Has Ontario become a hotbed of bare boobs? No. People are pragmatic in most cases and bare on the beach and even then not all that much; damn you Puritans.
In Europe where body culture is more advanced we find fewer sexual predators and violators because the taboo and therefore the desire to offend is reduced by the lack of mystery. Nude beaches abound and people are happy and tan and fat or thin or hairy or not as they choose.
In short, boobs... who cares? Well it seems that H&M and La Senza both have a problem with lactating women properly feeding thier infants the best food available so I guess some still do. BTW, both retailers are suffering negative results in the media and from lactating mothers across Canada.
Cheers.
Leave a comment on ohh_guard's reply
All or Nobody!
3 years ago
I often wondered why women couldn't go around topless like men do... And then I wonder why some men feel the need to do so, as they look most disgusting! And then I see some rather um... gross women trying to be skimpy, almost topless, that I just think is very bad taste! A good example was that picture of a guy you showed... that was really gross.
So, my attitude is, everyone should just be covered!! i was going to say you can't offend people that way if you're covered, but I see some people that really shouldn't dress certain ways and i think it's just a BAD idea. Mostly large women trying to wear skimpy clothes... I guess I feel people should dress for their body types. Don't get me wrong, I'm not skinny by any means, and i've been over 200 pounds in my life. But I usually didn't dress like i was a size 6 with skimpy clothes...
BUT just to be fair, I do think women should be allowed to do like the men. I know there have been times I just wanted to go without a shirt (or bra... but i can't do that now, because too big boobs, need support...) Then again, even a woman wearing just a bra is considered indecent. So, I guess my theory is to just make everyone cover up!
that's my thoughts :)
So, my attitude is, everyone should just be covered!! i was going to say you can't offend people that way if you're covered, but I see some people that really shouldn't dress certain ways and i think it's just a BAD idea. Mostly large women trying to wear skimpy clothes... I guess I feel people should dress for their body types. Don't get me wrong, I'm not skinny by any means, and i've been over 200 pounds in my life. But I usually didn't dress like i was a size 6 with skimpy clothes...
BUT just to be fair, I do think women should be allowed to do like the men. I know there have been times I just wanted to go without a shirt (or bra... but i can't do that now, because too big boobs, need support...) Then again, even a woman wearing just a bra is considered indecent. So, I guess my theory is to just make everyone cover up!
that's my thoughts :)
Leave a comment on geekyjenn's reply
A man going topless and a woman going topless are not at all the same. Women's breasts are sexual - just as are the genitals. So a woman has two "sets" of sexual characteristics while a man has one. So she has to cover an extra set. So what? It isn't a matter of fairness any more than that a man can't birth a child. It's a consequence of being male and female. There is no "human rights" component here. Sheesh!
Leave a comment on scarbowl's reply
Originally posted by: scarbowl
A man going topless and a woman going topless are not at all the same. Women's breasts are sexual - just as are the genitals.
No, they're definitely not the same. A man can't breastfeed a baby. But nobody said it was the same, the only question was whether it's discriminatory without reasonable basis.
Not long ago women couldn't show their ankles in public (yes, here in the U.S.), because that was arousing to men, thus not allowed (by the men in power at the time).
And in some parts of the world today, the men in power deemed that a woman must be covered head to toe with a burkah because anything less would be considered "pornographic" by the men who made those laws. It's really no different, just a different grade of the same concept.
Watch the two videos at the beginning of this thread for a more in depth discussion on this. Many people's initial reaction to this question is "no way, of course breasts should be covered", which is exactly why we took the time to lay out the broader list of relevant points.
And check out the surprising poll results - as well as some of the great points my by other posters in this thread.
"Public indecency laws" to this effect are being overturned by many courts where these laws are actually challenged. For example, New York City.
This is because these laws are arbitrarily discriminatory to women (read: laws made by men for women in previous centuries when men though themselves to be superior to women); and also because breasts are not sexual actually organs.
While breasts are definitely erogenous zones, so many other perfectly visible parts of the body.
The point really has nothing to do with whether various men (or women) particularly wish to see bare chested women in public. Frankly there are lots of bare chested men walking around who would be well advised to put something on - but they have a legal right to walk around bare chested all they want. As we point out in the two videos.
The real issue here is to address discriminatory situations and laws on the books today - just like similar issues in recent times, dealing with people of different skin colors or sexual orientation.
Originally posted by: scarbowl
So a woman has two "sets" of sexual characteristics while a man has one. So she has to cover an extra set. So what? It isn't a matter of fairness any more than that a man can't birth a child. It's a consequence of being male and female. There is no "human rights" component here. Sheesh!
A man being able to give birth to a child is a biological impossibility, which is not directly comparable to one group's set of personals preferences as to what "should" and "shouldn't" be shown in public. Those types of rules are arbitrary preferences, and change with the times.
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
I think its shouldn't b against the law to show your breasts but then it shouldnt b the law either. its should be up to the girl whether r how much she wantta show them.
r n my cast it probably should b against the law to show them lol:mad:
Willow
r n my cast it probably should b against the law to show them lol:mad:
Willow
Leave a comment on willow_n_pa's reply
here is the direct link New York Headshot Photographer - Wedding, Fashion Photography , sorry.
Leave a comment on dude123188's reply
I was looking at some of those photos... honestly looking at those women was far less disturbing than looking at some men that go around without shirts on! One picture had a "reconstructed" breast. I don't know if anyone noticed that one :) I'm not being judgemental but it is rare to see a woman after having that type of surgery (looked like a tumor was removed, not really a "prettying" of her breast) to be bold enough to go without a shirt on...
I thought the pictures were fairly tasteful :)
I thought the pictures were fairly tasteful :)
Leave a comment on geekyjenn's reply
I hadn't even thought about this before, but it does make sense to have it legalized and so it should. there is no logical reason why it is illegal.
just as it would be weird to see a woman walking topless in a supermarket, it would be weird to see a guy walking topless in a supermarket. and the same for any other place that would be awkward to see a woman topless.
as a female myself, if the law was passed, I wouldn't go topless, but the choice should be there.
just as it would be weird to see a woman walking topless in a supermarket, it would be weird to see a guy walking topless in a supermarket. and the same for any other place that would be awkward to see a woman topless.
as a female myself, if the law was passed, I wouldn't go topless, but the choice should be there.
Leave a comment on kettlekorn_danjenn's reply
Originally posted by: scarbowl
Women's breasts are sexual - just as are the genitals. So a woman has two "sets" of sexual characteristics while a man has one. So she has to cover an extra set. So what?
I couldn't disagree more. Breasts are not inherently sexual, it is our collective response to them that makes them so. However, even if I concede that point, laws against women being topless are blatantly unconstitutional unless the same law applies to men.
From the US Constitution, Amendment XIV:
"No state shall... deny to any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."
What does that mean? It means you can't, say, have laws that apply to blacks but not whites. It also means you can't have laws that apply to women and not men, which is why in 1992 the Court of Appeals overturned New York's law against the exposure of woman's breasts. The case was NY v. Santorelli, if you're interested the decision can be read here.
It's perfectly legal for a woman in New York to be topless anywhere it's legal for a man to be. The only reason the decision doesn't apply nationwide is because the Supremes have never ruled on it. If they did, it would be a no-brainer.
My personal opinion is that the court got it right, both for legal reasons, as well as the principal... there should be no differentiation. I also am in favor of boobies on the loose as much as possible.
Leave a comment on sxynyccpl's reply
Bad idea...
3 years ago
I do not think that this should even be considered. The government is allowed to make laws against this to prevent young children from being exposed to sexual themes early on in their life. However, the kid inside of us all would definately love for this to be legal, but once you think it through, it is not a good idea. Ever.
Leave a comment on magicmarker's reply
Hi Magicmarker, thanks for sharing your thoughts. The real question behind the points you made however remains "Why?".
This is a very, very scary statement:
This is a very, very scary statement:
I do not think that this should even be considered.
That's how an millions of people died when the Nazis took over Germany, that's the reason behind witch burnings and other incredible lapses of humanity and judgment in our history as a society and civilization.That's how and why racism and bigotry still exist in our society.
The reason for all these incredible things is simple: People not thinking. People just following what someone else says. People oppressing others and their freedoms because "that's how it has always been". That's how these things happen.
Always, always, always think for yourself - it's amazing and deeply troubling to realize how many of our thoughts and opinions are prechewed biased perspectives held by previous generations. But thankfully the younger generation growing up today is asking "why" instead of accepting biases.
That's our challenge to everyone: THINK for yourself, always question everything!
And when you find yourself saying "because that's how it is" or "because it's wrong" or "because it's right" - that's a great hint that you're just following someone else's prechewed thoughts and biases.
As we like to say, just because we're all doing it today, doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. Look throughout history for countless examples of this, and take it as a challenge to ask yourself "Why" at every step.. the answers will be illuminating.
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
I think most of you guys are right...down at the basic principle of it, it's only reasonable and fair to allow both genders to choose whether to expose any part of their body that is not a sexual organ.
However, I also agree with some of you that the widespread panic if we tried to do this all at once would be disastrous.
I think this probably WILL happen, but in its own time. It's got to go slowly. :)
Another interesting thing I heard recently is that boobs were made to bounce (i.e. be free) and that it's actually healthier and helps prevent things like breast cancer to give them room to do so. Just a thought in support of this idea.
I still say, though, that it's extremely important to present this idea to the general public gently, or it will be met with great protestation and discomfort.
However, I also agree with some of you that the widespread panic if we tried to do this all at once would be disastrous.
I think this probably WILL happen, but in its own time. It's got to go slowly. :)
Another interesting thing I heard recently is that boobs were made to bounce (i.e. be free) and that it's actually healthier and helps prevent things like breast cancer to give them room to do so. Just a thought in support of this idea.
I still say, though, that it's extremely important to present this idea to the general public gently, or it will be met with great protestation and discomfort.
Leave a comment on samiam_danjenn's reply
Hi SamIAm, great points. You're very right, abrupt major change tends to be a shock to many and prompt backlash, regardless of how much sense it may or may not make.
Just 60 years ago the idea of "women voting" in the U.S. was extremely scandalous.
Or black people going into certain clubs, restaurants, or even bathrooms.
And not long from now, we'll look back on discrimination against gays the same way, a sad part of our history, a part of "growing up" if you will in our culture.
As I like to say, the "womens rights" movement isn't about women having more rights, it's about people being equal... men, women, gay, straight, confused, white, black, blue, etc. That's finally the point. :-)
Just 60 years ago the idea of "women voting" in the U.S. was extremely scandalous.
Or black people going into certain clubs, restaurants, or even bathrooms.
And not long from now, we'll look back on discrimination against gays the same way, a sad part of our history, a part of "growing up" if you will in our culture.
As I like to say, the "womens rights" movement isn't about women having more rights, it's about people being equal... men, women, gay, straight, confused, white, black, blue, etc. That's finally the point. :-)
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
Originally posted by: Dan And Jennifer
Hi Magicmarker, thanks for sharing your thoughts. The real question behind the points you made however remains "Why?".
This is a very, very scary statement:I do not think that this should even be considered.
That's how an millions of people died when the Nazis took over Germany, that's the reason behind witch burnings and other incredible lapses of humanity and judgment in our history as a society and civilization.That's how and why racism and bigotry still exist in our society.
The reason for all these incredible things is simple: People not thinking. People just following what someone else says. People oppressing others and their freedoms because "that's how it has always been". That's how these things happen.
Always, always, always think for yourself - it's amazing and deeply troubling to realize how many of our thoughts and opinions are prechewed biased perspectives held by previous generations. But thankfully the younger generation growing up today is asking "why" instead of accepting biases.
That's our challenge to everyone: THINK for yourself, always question everything!
And when you find yourself saying "because that's how it is" or "because it's wrong" or "because it's right" - that's a great hint that you're just following someone else's prechewed thoughts and biases.
As we like to say, just because we're all doing it today, doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. Look throughout history for countless examples of this, and take it as a challenge to ask yourself "Why" at every step.. the answers will be illuminating.
First of all, i am thinking for myself. And in response to answering a question with "because it is right" or "because it has always been that way", I never ever have said that becquse i have my own reasons. Do I agree with slavery beacause it has always been "popular" in civilizations? No! I just dont think that it is right for a woman to be exposing her breasts to the public. A woman's breasts have, as far as I can remember, been a sex symbol. Right now, with all of the portrayals of women on TV and ads as being sex objects, i just dont thinglk that it is right.
Leave a comment on magicmarker's reply
Originally posted by: Magicmarker
No! I just dont think that it is right for a woman to be exposing her breasts to the public. A woman's breasts have, as far as I can remember, been a sex symbol.
Why do you think that, because you can't see womens' breasts as anything other than sexual, no one else can, and therefore we need to live by your rules? It is your mindset that prevents them from being seen as anything other than sexual and therefore your inability to (in Dan's words) think outside the box that prevents women from being seen as equals to men. The collective mindset of people like you is one thing that prevents people from being treated equally in society as a whole (in a much broader context than just this issue).
Leave a comment on alexa_danjenn's reply
If you think about it, what's the difference?
I mean, some men have similar breasts, some women have smallish breasts which look like a man's, and anyway, it's little more than a swelling.
I believe I speak for almost every man (though not necessarily for the same reasons ;) ) when i say women should be allowed to.
I mean, some men have similar breasts, some women have smallish breasts which look like a man's, and anyway, it's little more than a swelling.
I believe I speak for almost every man (though not necessarily for the same reasons ;) ) when i say women should be allowed to.
Leave a comment on rob_danjenn's reply
Originally posted by: Magicmarker
A woman's breasts have, as far as I can remember, been a sex symbol. Right now, with all of the portrayals of women on TV and ads as being sex objects, i just dont thinglk that it is right.
As I said previously, I don't buy the argument that breasts are inherently sexual, however that is largely irrelevant. Tell me, Magic, are you in favor of discrimination? Laws for women that don't apply to men? Laws for blacks that don't apply to whites? If so, then never mind, if not then you have to realize there is no reasonable (or constitutional) way to ban only females from going topless, unless you are prepared to make toplessness illegal for everyone, which is IMO ridiculous. However, it is at least constitutional
Leave a comment on sxynyccpl's reply
Not every woman looks like Jessica Biel
2 years ago
Okok so every woman is beautiful ' a perfect creation of God ' the most beautiful person in the world to someone
But we need some standards of taste
Defacation is as natural as breasts - can I do a Borat in the middle of your condo habitrail walkway?
Not everyone wants to see what someone else may find unappealing
We're certainly not in burka-land, so I don't think we have a heck of a lot of argument on this point
I have yet to hear of any woman receiving a criminal citation for breast-baring
I can see the argument, but why don't y'all go ahead and bare them should you feel appropriate to do so
All of this complaint is like the passions of fans after losing a soccer match- it is like dust
But we need some standards of taste
Defacation is as natural as breasts - can I do a Borat in the middle of your condo habitrail walkway?
Not everyone wants to see what someone else may find unappealing
We're certainly not in burka-land, so I don't think we have a heck of a lot of argument on this point
I have yet to hear of any woman receiving a criminal citation for breast-baring
I can see the argument, but why don't y'all go ahead and bare them should you feel appropriate to do so
All of this complaint is like the passions of fans after losing a soccer match- it is like dust
Leave a comment on peterochs's reply
I don't know if anyone touched on this...if you go to legally-designated public areas, women are allowed to go topless.
South Beach in Florida is a topless beach.
As well, there are clothing-optional beaches scattered across the USA.
There are 2 that I know of:
Sandy Hook in NJ and
Haulover in South Florida.
South Beach in Florida is a topless beach.
As well, there are clothing-optional beaches scattered across the USA.
There are 2 that I know of:
Sandy Hook in NJ and
Haulover in South Florida.
Leave a comment on slittylicker's reply
Hmmm...
2 years ago
Originally posted by: slittylicker
I don't know if anyone touched on this...if you go to legally-designated public areas, women are allowed to go topless.
South Beach in Florida is a topless beach.
As well, there are clothing-optional beaches scattered across the USA.
There are 2 that I know of:
Sandy Hook in NJ and
Haulover in South Florida.
Depends on the area - in most areas a woman can still get arrested, depending on local laws on the books - and frankly the cops who happen to be around and their personal preferences.
which was really the point of this whole thread - legal discrimination between women and men. that's really all there was to it. :-)
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
Originally posted by: PJ@1970
Not every woman looks like Jessica Biel
Hmmm... at first it may seem like a good idea to make laws based on what we personally would "like" to see and WHO we would PERSONALLY like to see go naked.
But that wouldn't really be a workable system, would it. This isn't a question of who we'd love to see naked. It's a question of legal discrimination between men and women, based on laws from far more primitive times.
Originally posted by: PJ@1970
we need some standards of taste
Defacation is as natural as breasts - can I do a Borat in the middle of your condo habitrail walkway?
Not everyone wants to see what someone else may find unappealing
We're certainly not in burka-land, so I don't think we have a heck of a lot of argument on this point
To your point below of "this is not burka-land", I see where you're coming from. You're saying "hey, it's not that bad". and you're right, it's not a massive discrimination against women, only discriminatory in a way that's not terribly awful. Not sure I'm buying the difference though.
On standards of taste, that leaves us with an interesting quandary. Again, we're talking about making laws from preferences not to protect people from others, etc.
The analogy is flawed: a more correct one would be that if men can legally pee in the street, making it illegal for women to do so is discriminatory. THAT is the question - not whether we enjoy watching people pee in the street - but rather the discrimination of allowing men to do it and discriminating against women.
100 years ago it was considered "pornographic" for a woman to show her ankle. And 60 years ago women couldn't vote. This is a question of discrimination, not personal preference, not a beauty contest where only "?Jessica Biel?" can walk around naked... that comparison just clouds the issue.
Please check out the videos that started this thread, you'll see these points articulated in better detail.
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
Originally posted by: sxyNYCcpl
As I said previously, I don't buy the argument that breasts are inherently sexual, however that is largely irrelevant. Tell me, Magic, are you in favor of discrimination? Laws for women that don't apply to men? Laws for blacks that don't apply to whites? If so, then never mind, if not then you have to realize there is no reasonable (or constitutional) way to ban only females from going topless, unless you are prepared to make toplessness illegal for everyone, which is IMO ridiculous. However, it is at least constitutional
not inherently sexual? then why do women wear garments that emphasize cleavage? (no that I have any problem with that)
why is breast augmentation so popular where, say, forehead augmentation is not? wouldn't the focus of augmentation be irrelevant were they not of an attraction-based or sexual nature?
you're saying it's not fair because men can go topless whereas women can not? I would guess that most places a man would be topless a woman would be somewhat welcome to be also topless (except for public pools, drunk dudes at Packers football games when it's 20 degrees out... some exceptions..)
if you're addressing this as a constitutional issue then knock yourself out! I guess it could be considered a religious or expression matter - but those are regulated by local laws and public spaces aren't they? an Egyptian Coptic would probably get some flack if they smoked up some bhang in a child daycare
I would guess you would find it rather inappropriate to have women topless in some areas also
but some areas I wouldn't mind it at all - the topless-ers should expect some gawking and drooling from topless-ees though
Leave a comment on peterochs's reply
Originally posted by: Dan And Jennifer
Hmmm... at first it may seem like a good idea to make laws based on what we personally would "like" to see and WHO we would PERSONALLY like to see go naked.
But that wouldn't really be a workable system, would it. This isn't a question of who we'd love to see naked. It's a question of legal discrimination between men and women, based on laws from far more primitive times.
To your point below of "this is not burka-land", I see where you're coming from. You're saying "hey, it's not that bad". and you're right, it's not a massive discrimination against women, only discriminatory in a way that's not terribly awful. Not sure I'm buying the difference though.
On standards of taste, that leaves us with an interesting quandary. Again, we're talking about making laws from preferences not to protect people from others, etc.
The analogy is flawed: a more correct one would be that if men can legally pee in the street, making it illegal for women to do so is discriminatory. THAT is the question - not whether we enjoy watching people pee in the street - but rather the discrimination of allowing men to do it and discriminating against women.
100 years ago it was considered "pornographic" for a woman to show her ankle. And 60 years ago women couldn't vote. This is a question of discrimination, not personal preference, not a beauty contest where only "?Jessica Biel?" can walk around naked... that comparison just clouds the issue.
Please check out the videos that started this thread, you'll see these points articulated in better detail.
fun site by the way - newbie here - saw the article in "Quick" - and I hope y'all did some legal ass-covering regarding the likeness of your "ask" logo to the Ask.com Search Engine - Better Web Search logo
but yes yes I understand the discrimination issue
but but - I contended earlier that I find it hard to imagine that a woman would ever get a ticket or citation for having some tasteful nudity at any place a guy displays tasteful nudity - I've seen it in NYC
and speaking of discrimination -
isn't "women and children first!" discrimination?
I think this women's discrimination thing is a little passe at this point - you won't hear any women complaining sexual discrimination when a man holds the door open for her but let's the door swing into the next guy - "hey that was discrimination against that man mr. discriminating door holder!"
any time a woman sees a man topless
I mean, I see it a bit more like the african american thing of wearing the pants down to the thighs - ok super, it's a cultural rebellion thing, sure sure, but "a brother's gotta pull his pants up" - Pres.Obama
edit>>>>
and I didn't hyperlink the -ask dot com- link, it did that automatically - I'm not a spammer!!!
Leave a comment on peterochs's reply
To mention an idea I found in Asimov novels: Could it be the 'taboo' nature of women's breasts, the fact they are not seen, that causes them to be sex symbols?
So, surely, we're enhancing the 'problem' by censoring it, or increasing their sexual appeal?
As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference, except for the fact men's breasts can be viewed freely. Therefore, very little sex appeal.
To conclude, if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest. Name another reason against 'breast baring'. I can't really think of any others that make sense. (I'm treating 'snakebabe's' statement on the first page as a joke).
So, surely, we're enhancing the 'problem' by censoring it, or increasing their sexual appeal?
As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference, except for the fact men's breasts can be viewed freely. Therefore, very little sex appeal.
To conclude, if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest. Name another reason against 'breast baring'. I can't really think of any others that make sense. (I'm treating 'snakebabe's' statement on the first page as a joke).
Leave a comment on rob_danjenn's reply
Originally posted by: rob
To mention an idea I found in Asimov novels: Could it be the 'taboo' nature of women's breasts, the fact they are not seen, that causes them to be sex symbols?
So, surely, we're enhancing the 'problem' by censoring it, or increasing their sexual appeal?
As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference, except for the fact men's breasts can be viewed freely. Therefore, very little sex appeal.
To conclude, if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest. Name another reason against 'breast baring'. I can't really think of any others that make sense. (I'm treating 'snakebabe's' statement on the first page as a joke).
>>'taboo' nature of women's breasts, the fact they are not seen, that causes them to be sex symbols?<<
I agree
>>So, surely, we're enhancing the 'problem' by censoring it, or increasing their if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest.sexual appeal?<<
yes yes
>>To conclude, if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest.<<
yep yep - akin to a porn star who is past prime - the unknown provides mystery and appeal
the known, when known by everyone, (in the Biblical sense when referring to the porn hag, lol), becomes passe and no longer attractive
Leave a comment on peterochs's reply
Not to long ago I wrote a sereis of articles on my blog the subject of Nudity, Modesty and Culture from a Christan prespective (I am a pastor and a conservative one in many respects) On this issue though the problem is difficult Scripturally, not because I beleive the manuscripts of Scripture are inaccurate but becasue the Bible itself has little to say on the subject of whether or not a woman's breasts constitute nudity.
1. When Adam and Eve sin it says they both made aprons, it does not additoionally say that Eve made a bra. They covered their lower parts not their chests.
2. The few verses in the New Testament(1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3) say nothing about nudity in relationship to modesty -- instead the opposite is true. The issue seems to be in both cases that women were dressing oppulantly and showing off their wealth and thus making the poorer women look like lesser people.
3. If breasts are mentioned (even by Jesus) it is usually in the context of breastfeeding. Only by Solomon does their seem to be a sexual context to female breasts and that is positive. (Guys enjoy your wife's breasts, etc.)
When it comes to this subject involving the nudity of female breasts I have only to say that this is pure cultural defining of modesty. You will not find Bible on it.
Most of the arguments made here on this subject are right on.
1. Just because I don't want to see it does not mean that it can't be shown. (There was a large woman wearing a thong at my work the other day under a white pair of pants. Didn't really wnat to see that but can't say I have the right to say to her she should go home and change.)
2. The fact that their is a legal difference between a man's chest and female's chest is probably both sexual discrimination and unjust.
3. Much of this comes from religious culture of the past.
I agree but I also want to respect the rights of others who may own property and not want it in their backyard so to speak.
1. I don't have a problem with a business saying 'no shirt, no service' as long as it applies to both sexes -- its fair.
2. If certain areas are defined this way in society as long as it is all or nothing then its OK. If people want a beach that it topless OK, but if they don't then make guys wear a top too. What needs to be removed is the idea of one sex can and the other can't.
3. In the case of communities, let each one define their own standard. Let democracy rule as long as both sexes are affected equally.
IMHO.
1. When Adam and Eve sin it says they both made aprons, it does not additoionally say that Eve made a bra. They covered their lower parts not their chests.
2. The few verses in the New Testament(1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3) say nothing about nudity in relationship to modesty -- instead the opposite is true. The issue seems to be in both cases that women were dressing oppulantly and showing off their wealth and thus making the poorer women look like lesser people.
3. If breasts are mentioned (even by Jesus) it is usually in the context of breastfeeding. Only by Solomon does their seem to be a sexual context to female breasts and that is positive. (Guys enjoy your wife's breasts, etc.)
When it comes to this subject involving the nudity of female breasts I have only to say that this is pure cultural defining of modesty. You will not find Bible on it.
Most of the arguments made here on this subject are right on.
1. Just because I don't want to see it does not mean that it can't be shown. (There was a large woman wearing a thong at my work the other day under a white pair of pants. Didn't really wnat to see that but can't say I have the right to say to her she should go home and change.)
2. The fact that their is a legal difference between a man's chest and female's chest is probably both sexual discrimination and unjust.
3. Much of this comes from religious culture of the past.
I agree but I also want to respect the rights of others who may own property and not want it in their backyard so to speak.
1. I don't have a problem with a business saying 'no shirt, no service' as long as it applies to both sexes -- its fair.
2. If certain areas are defined this way in society as long as it is all or nothing then its OK. If people want a beach that it topless OK, but if they don't then make guys wear a top too. What needs to be removed is the idea of one sex can and the other can't.
3. In the case of communities, let each one define their own standard. Let democracy rule as long as both sexes are affected equally.
IMHO.
Leave a comment on ed_the_pastor's reply
Thnaks Ed
2 years ago
Hi Ed! Welcome - and thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights on this.
Look forward to seeing more from you on the other topics here... I'm guessing you'll find some interesting conversations particularly in the "Censorship & Sexual Repression" topic area of the Forums.
Thanks!
Dan
Look forward to seeing more from you on the other topics here... I'm guessing you'll find some interesting conversations particularly in the "Censorship & Sexual Repression" topic area of the Forums.
Thanks!
Dan
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
Originally posted by: PJ@1970
not inherently sexual? then why do women wear garments that emphasize cleavage?
Perhaps I should have said not biologically sexual. They have nothing to do with reproduction, per se. And to the degree that we humans have culturally sexualized the female breast, it's at least partially BECAUSE we require them to be hidden. The whole allure of the unknown and all of that.
Originally posted by: PJ@1970
you're saying it's not fair because men can go topless whereas women can not? I would guess that most places a man would be topless a woman would be somewhat welcome to be also topless (except for public pools, drunk dudes at Packers football games when it's 20 degrees out... some exceptions..)
if you're addressing this as a constitutional issue then knock yourself out!
That is exactly what I am saying. Not only that, but the supreme court of the State of NY agrees with me, as they struck down laws requiring women to wear tops where men are not required to. Yes, it is legal in NY for a woman to be topless anywhere it is legal for a man, because it is unconstitutional to have laws that apply to women but not to men. The state chose not to pursue further appeals, but I wish they had as were this issue to ever make it's way to the Supreme Court, were they to rule in an intellectually honest way they would have to agree, and then poof, nationwide toplessness would be legal.
While I like the idea of bare boobies in public, that is not my primary motivator. I find it abhorrent that in 2009 we still have sexual discrimination on the books. I would like to think we were more evolved than that, alas I fear we are not.
Leave a comment on sxynyccpl's reply
This would be the point...
2 years ago
Originally posted by: sxyNYCcpl
While I like the idea of bare boobies in public, that is not my primary motivator. I find it abhorrent that in 2009 we still have sexual discrimination on the books. I would like to think we were more evolved than that, alas I fear we are not.
And that folks was the crux of our issue with these laws... it's really that simple for us.
Leave a comment on danandjennifer's reply
Originally posted by: Dan And Jennifer
And that folks was the crux of our issue with these laws... it's really that simple for us.
I recently had an extensive online debate against a religious/social uber-conservative about this topic. The idea of bare breasts in public was just more than she could handle emotionally, and she tried all kinds of ways to justify her position. Ultimately she declared that men and women were not being treated differently because both were required to cover up their sexual organs. I pointed out that breasts had no functional involvement in procreation but she just couldn't follow along.
I really, really enjoy tweaking people like this, but sometimes I feel like I'm politically homeless because on social issues I tend to side with the D's, on fiscal/defense I'm usually with the R's. But people who think their ideas of how human sexuality "should be" should be enforced by law on the rest of us are the ones that get my special ire. I really don't care if you want to be a bitter prude, but you can kiss my ass if you think I'm going to be one too just because you said so.
Sorry, got a little rantish there. I'll go steal a Valium from my neighbor.
Leave a comment on sxynyccpl's reply
Surely they should be allowed
2 years ago
I wonder how people say it is obscene. If that's the case even men should be punished for showing of their breasts. The real problem with us is that we have set it up in our mind as obscene. So I would like to say that Women should not be discriminated and breast showing should not be seen as illegal.
Leave a comment on parnika_danjenn's reply
I agree that women should have the choice to go topless if they do so wish.
I was also wondering about the laws of girls. When I was in Spain recently at the water park young girls often had just bikini bottoms on. At that age there was nothing on their chest to distinguish them from boys so it was ok. However it raises the issue of when they should have to start covering up. Is it at a certain age? Or when their breasts start to develop?
It seemed extremely unfair on females when I was there and saw some of the larger males who indeed had larger breasts.
Another point to consider is the fact that if women do go topless (particularly bra-less) for long periods of their life then it could cause their breasts to start to sag. Just as they say one should wear a sports-bra with extra support during exercise then the lack of a bra in everyday life could cause issues.
There was a case in Dubai quite recently where a woman was given abuse because she was wearing a shoulder less top and it was considered by Muslims to be indecent. If they want to be covered up with the burkhas (sp?) then let them but it is wrong for them to force others to conform to their viewpoint.
Thanks for raising the topic!
-Alistair
I was also wondering about the laws of girls. When I was in Spain recently at the water park young girls often had just bikini bottoms on. At that age there was nothing on their chest to distinguish them from boys so it was ok. However it raises the issue of when they should have to start covering up. Is it at a certain age? Or when their breasts start to develop?
It seemed extremely unfair on females when I was there and saw some of the larger males who indeed had larger breasts.
Another point to consider is the fact that if women do go topless (particularly bra-less) for long periods of their life then it could cause their breasts to start to sag. Just as they say one should wear a sports-bra with extra support during exercise then the lack of a bra in everyday life could cause issues.
There was a case in Dubai quite recently where a woman was given abuse because she was wearing a shoulder less top and it was considered by Muslims to be indecent. If they want to be covered up with the burkhas (sp?) then let them but it is wrong for them to force others to conform to their viewpoint.
Thanks for raising the topic!
-Alistair
Leave a comment on alistair_danjenn's reply
Change topic type
Link this topic
Provide the permalink of a topic that is related to this topic
Reply to danandjennifer's question
{"z5183463":[44802000000227733,44802000000227749],"z5179845":[44802000000227757],"z5178771":[44802000000227823],"z5180131":[44802000000227811],"z5181998":[44802000000227761],"z5179232":[44802000000227741],"z5183665":[44802000000227769],"z5179077":[44802000000227791,44802000000227807],"z5179970":[44802000000227753,44802000000227771],"z5182380":[44802000000227759],"z5181269":[44802000000227775],"z2667377":[44802000000227725,44802000000227729,44802000000227755,44802000000227767,44802000000227781,44802000000227785,44802000000227799,44802000000227801,44802000000227813,44802000000227817],"z5182308":[44802000000227821],"z5182267":[44802000000227797],"z5180061":[44802000000227751],"z5180335":[44802000000227747],"z5181622":[44802000000227779,44802000000227787],"z5181534":[44802000000227763,44802000000227773],"z5182229":[44802000000227795,44802000000227803,44802000000227805,44802000000227809],"z5183657":[44802000000227765],"z5181222":[44802000000227777,44802000000227793,44802000000227815,44802000000227819],"z5183309":[44802000000227743,44802000000227745],"z5183652":[44802000000227735],"z5182887":[44802000000227737,44802000000227739],"z5180178":[44802000000227727,44802000000227731],"z5182764":[44802000000227783],"z5177597":[44802000000227789]}
Statistics
- 49 Replies
- 6979 Views
- 0 Followers
