Free The Nipple - Thoughts?

HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
I did a search and I was quite surprised to find nothing on the topic. What do all of you, women and men, think of this? Do you consider the female breast a sexual organ, or is it the same as a male's?

If you didn't know, the reason both genders have nipples is because nipples are formed in utero before gender is assigned.

I can't find anything to back this up, but I was sure about 10 years ago it became legal for women to walk around Winnipeg topless, just like men.

Should females be legally allowed to topless in public? If not, why? If so, do you believe there would be any social ramifications of such a change?

And no, I don't believe breastfeeding in public should even be part of this discussion. Women should be able to breastfeed in church, for all I care.
«1345

Comments

  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,399

  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,399
    one thing to consider is that female breast trigger a sexual response in men. almost every 80's R rated comedy movie counted on men going to have a chance to see a nipple for 5 seconds. can't imagine being 16 again with abundant nipples walking around the neighborhood. mind blown
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,448
    edited April 20
    For it B)
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    but don't you think that any societal change involves a bit of transition time? I mean, over the course of 5-10 years, it would be completely normalized, if not sooner than that. of course it would be weird at first, but honestly, it's not like all of a sudden every woman walking the street would suddenly be topless. I think a small minority would, and only in certain situations/events. an interesting statistic that I read was that out of all the people polled, it was actually more opposed by women than it was men.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,399

    but don't you think that any societal change involves a bit of transition time? I mean, over the course of 5-10 years, it would be completely normalized, if not sooner than that. of course it would be weird at first, but honestly, it's not like all of a sudden every woman walking the street would suddenly be topless. I think a small minority would, and only in certain situations/events. an interesting statistic that I read was that out of all the people polled, it was actually more opposed by women than it was men.

    There is a reason it is more opposed by women. Every male would spend one of a genies three wishes from a magic lamp on topless women walking around.

    This isn't 'Nam, Smokey. There are rules.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    Jason P said:

    but don't you think that any societal change involves a bit of transition time? I mean, over the course of 5-10 years, it would be completely normalized, if not sooner than that. of course it would be weird at first, but honestly, it's not like all of a sudden every woman walking the street would suddenly be topless. I think a small minority would, and only in certain situations/events. an interesting statistic that I read was that out of all the people polled, it was actually more opposed by women than it was men.

    There is a reason it is more opposed by women. Every male would spend one of a genies three wishes from a magic lamp on topless women walking around.

    This isn't 'Nam, Smokey. There are rules.
    I know what you are saying, but I thought that since most "women should cover up" laws were instituted by oppressive males over history, that it would be them that opposed it, not modern women.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,263
    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,608
    Can I vote just to have everyone put a damn shirt on unless you are playing a sport or at the beach/pool. And then same rules should apply for all.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,399

    Jason P said:

    but don't you think that any societal change involves a bit of transition time? I mean, over the course of 5-10 years, it would be completely normalized, if not sooner than that. of course it would be weird at first, but honestly, it's not like all of a sudden every woman walking the street would suddenly be topless. I think a small minority would, and only in certain situations/events. an interesting statistic that I read was that out of all the people polled, it was actually more opposed by women than it was men.

    There is a reason it is more opposed by women. Every male would spend one of a genies three wishes from a magic lamp on topless women walking around.

    This isn't 'Nam, Smokey. There are rules.
    I know what you are saying, but I thought that since most "women should cover up" laws were instituted by oppressive males over history, that it would be them that opposed it, not modern women.
    Here is a protester having one of the all-time backfire reactions on one of the all time oppressive males.



    I have no problems, but there is a huge can of worms waiting to be opened
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,608
    He is trying soooooo hard to keep looking her in the eye!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    Jason P said:

    Jason P said:

    but don't you think that any societal change involves a bit of transition time? I mean, over the course of 5-10 years, it would be completely normalized, if not sooner than that. of course it would be weird at first, but honestly, it's not like all of a sudden every woman walking the street would suddenly be topless. I think a small minority would, and only in certain situations/events. an interesting statistic that I read was that out of all the people polled, it was actually more opposed by women than it was men.

    There is a reason it is more opposed by women. Every male would spend one of a genies three wishes from a magic lamp on topless women walking around.

    This isn't 'Nam, Smokey. There are rules.
    I know what you are saying, but I thought that since most "women should cover up" laws were instituted by oppressive males over history, that it would be them that opposed it, not modern women.
    Here is a protester having one of the all-time backfire reactions on one of the all time oppressive males.



    I have no problems, but there is a huge can of worms waiting to be opened
    the pic looks doctored.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 17,946
    edited April 21
    I'll keep my nips to myself, thank you very much! While I do agree that women's breasts tend to be seen / appreciated in a sexual way (by both men and women), it makes me think to the times when women had to be almost fully covered when swimming. Showing an ankle or bit of leg prompted derision and cries of immorality, among other things.

    Times change. Views change. We hopefully evolve some over time.

    (although it doesn't seem to be much of an issue in Europe)

    Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable strolling around or going about my day topless in public. One, I'm simply modest in that sense...and two, it'd be pretty fucking weird to run into neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc. while bare-breasted.

    Legit (and thoughtful!) question on the part of your young daughter, Hugh. Sadly, I think double standards will always exist.

    Post edited by Kat on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,263
    edited April 20

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 5,842
    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,503
    Having lived in a town where it was legal for women to go topless, it really didn't present itself very often, and when it did, it wasn't a big deal. Most of the time, it would be in hippie-like gatherings. Probably the group setting made it more comfortable. Very rarely would you see a woman by herself with no top on. I think the uptightness American's have about nudity contributes to the sexualization of breasts outside of a sexualized situation (e.g. Two people being intimate).
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 5,891

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    The burka/hijab comparison is so obvious. I'm surprised he didn't realize it as he was typing.

  • dignindignin Posts: 5,018

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    Nailed it.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,263
    edited April 21

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    Not even close to what I was saying. Please read the thread carefully before jumping to conclusions.
    That was the most inaccurate and idiotic response I've seen in a long time. Where did I or anyone else make the statement or imply this is because men cant control themselves? No where. No where has anyone even suggested a burka or victorian clothing. Its what ALL of society feels more comfortable with.
    Who is determining how women can dress? Because there is a law that prevents women from showing body parts that are deemed sexual? So you don't have the right to tell me not to wave my genitals around then? I mean, who are you to tell me how to dress....
    The OP even said that more women than men are against making it legal.
    What I did say was the vast majority of society, including mostly women, do not feel comfortable making it legal. So why push it?
    What you are saying is ignore what the majority wishes for, and push the country in a different direction anyway, but go ahead and accuse someone of radical Islam so my opinion sounds more profound.

    You are the only one to bring up how men feel into the debate. All I said was why push for change when the majority don't want it. And from that you jump to burkas and hijabs and men being out of control? Seriously? How in the world did you make that leap? One person mentioned men and thier inability to control themselves, and that was you. But somehow that is my argument? Did you even read anything that was written, or did you just start typing away?

    I mean geesh, if more women don't want it legal why are you hiding behind women's rights as your cause to see more breasts? Why do you feel the need to tell women what to wear and push YOUR agenda? And anyone who doesnt agree with YOU compare them to radical nations who dont have women's rights because they dont share the same beliefs as you about nudity.
    Post edited by Kat on
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,263
    dignin said:

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    Nailed it.
    see above
  • dignindignin Posts: 5,018
    mace1229 said:

    dignin said:

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    Nailed it.
    see above
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.


    You said it.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,263
    edited April 21
    okay, I meant every man and women, since I was talking about society (meaning everyone as a whole) and it was already said more women than men are against that.
    But from that there is a logical leap to burkas? Hard to take anyone seriously who would rationalize that thought process. And to be honest, looks to me like another example someone using women's rights to push one's own agenda when the thought process is that flawed.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 5,842
    mace1229 said:

    okay, I meant every man and women, since I was talking about society (meaning everyone as a whole) and it was already said more women than men are against that.
    But from that there is a logical leap to burkas? Hard to take anyone seriously who would rationalize that thought process. And to be honest, looks to me like another example someone using women's rights to push one's own agenda when the thought process is that flawed.

    Not much to say in reply when you can't see the glaring flaws in your logic.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • dignindignin Posts: 5,018
    mace1229 said:

    okay, I meant every man and women, since I was talking about society (meaning everyone as a whole) and it was already said more women than men are against that.
    But from that there is a logical leap to burkas? Hard to take anyone seriously who would rationalize that thought process. And to be honest, looks to me like another example someone using women's rights to push one's own agenda when the thought process is that flawed.

    This response makes my brain hurt.
  • SmellymanSmellyman AsiaPosts: 2,733
    It would ruin the fun if they were out too often
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    edited April 21
    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    the hot in the summer thing is but one example. it's a comfort thing. but more, it's an equality thing.

    my comment about europe was not "we should do what they do". it's an example that societies can do it without all the fear of "oh my god! my son's going to get a boner because that girl is showing her breasts!".

    I don't say change for the sake of change. I don't advocate for that. I'm saying why are women forced to wear a shirt when men aren't? it really is as simple as that. it's not their fault that many men are pigs.

    Interesting, men used to be allowed to wear shorts and sandals to work where I work. That changed last summer. They WENT BACKWARDS. Women are allowed to wear skirts (my boss wears ones that nearly show off her bits) and sandals, not to mention sleeveless tops, but I'm forced to wear a collared shirt, pants and dress shoes. I think that's bullshit. Especially since I bus to work, so I'm a sweaty mess when I arrive. how professional does that look?

    and as to your last question, I'm not "pushing" anything. I'm merely conducting a discussion asking for people's opinion. yes, many women don't support it. so the rest need to suffer because a prudes don't want to do it themselves? that's the same argument of why so many women feel shame for breastfeeding in public.
    Post edited by Kat on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    edited April 21
    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    Not even close to what I was saying. Please read the thread carefully before jumping to conclusions.
    That was the most inaccurate and idiotic response I've seen in a long time. Where did I or anyone else make the statement or imply this is because men cant control themselves? No where. No where has anyone even suggested a burka or victorian clothing. Its what ALL of society feels more comfortable with.
    Who is determining how women can dress? Because there is a law that prevents women from showing body parts that are deemed sexual? So you don't have the right to tell me not to wave my genitals around then? I mean, who are you to tell me how to dress....
    The OP even said that more women than men are against making it legal.
    What I did say was the vast majority of society, including mostly women, do not feel comfortable making it legal. So why push it?
    What you are saying is ignore what the majority wishes for, and push the country in a different direction anyway, but go ahead and accuse someone of radical Islam so my opinion sounds more profound.

    You are the only one to bring up how men feel into the debate. All I said was why push for change when the majority don't want it. And from that you jump to burkas and hijabs and men being out of control? Seriously? How in the world did you make that leap? One person mentioned men and thier inability to control themselves, and that was you. But somehow that is my argument? Did you even read anything that was written, or did you just start typing away?

    I mean geesh, if more women don't want it legal why are you hiding behind women's rights as your cause to see more breasts? Why do you feel the need to tell women what to wear and push YOUR agenda? And anyone who doesnt agree with YOU compare them to radical nations who dont have women's rights because they dont share the same beliefs as you about nudity.
    it's not an agenda to see more breasts. jesus. you claim that it is someone else who mentioned that men can't control themselves, but here you are stating that we want women to go topless so we can see more titties. that's preposterous and insulting.

    it's not OUR AGENDA. it's so WOMEN HAVE THE SAME OPTIONS AS MEN. no one is telling women they are REQUIRED to go topless. how did you get to that? do what makes you feel comfortable. if you want to wear clothing up to your eyes, have at it.

    No, you can't put your junk out for all to see. Those are genitals, and everyone's, male and female, stay hidden. Women's breasts are not sexual organs. they play zero part in conception. they are there for one purpose: food for babies. it doesn't matter if it's the perception of the majority that they are: the point is they aren't. the majority think they are because society said they are.

    many older and/or fatter men have breasts that look exactly like women's. why aren't they forced to cover them up?
    Post edited by Kat on
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 11,519
    edited April 21

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    Not even close to what I was saying. Please read the thread carefully before jumping to conclusions.
    That was the most inaccurate and idiotic response I've seen in a long time. Where did I or anyone else make the statement or imply this is because men cant control themselves? No where. No where has anyone even suggested a burka or victorian clothing. Its what ALL of society feels more comfortable with.
    Who is determining how women can dress? Because there is a law that prevents women from showing body parts that are deemed sexual? So you don't have the right to tell me not to wave my genitals around then? I mean, who are you to tell me how to dress....
    The OP even said that more women than men are against making it legal.
    What I did say was the vast majority of society, including mostly women, do not feel comfortable making it legal. So why push it?
    What you are saying is ignore what the majority wishes for, and push the country in a different direction anyway, but go ahead and accuse someone of radical Islam so my opinion sounds more profound.

    You are the only one to bring up how men feel into the debate. All I said was why push for change when the majority don't want it. And from that you jump to burkas and hijabs and men being out of control? Seriously? How in the world did you make that leap? One person mentioned men and thier inability to control themselves, and that was you. But somehow that is my argument? Did you even read anything that was written, or did you just start typing away?

    I mean geesh, if more women don't want it legal why are you hiding behind women's rights as your cause to see more breasts? Why do you feel the need to tell women what to wear and push YOUR agenda? And anyone who doesnt agree with YOU compare them to radical nations who dont have women's rights because they dont share the same beliefs as you about nudity.
    it's not an agenda to see more breasts. jesus. you claim that it is someone else who mentioned that men can't control themselves, but here you are stating that we want women to go topless so we can see more titties. that's preposterous and insulting.

    it's not OUR AGENDA. it's so WOMEN HAVE THE SAME OPTIONS AS MEN. no one is telling women they are REQUIRED to go topless. how did you get to that? do what makes you feel comfortable. if you want to wear clothing up to your eyes, have at it.

    No, you can't put your junk out for all to see. Those are genitals, and everyone's, male and female, stay hidden. Women's breasts are not sexual organs. they play zero part in conception. they are there for one purpose: food for babies. it doesn't matter if it's the perception of the majority that they are: the point is they aren't. the majority think they are because society said they are.

    many older and/or fatter men have breasts that look exactly like women's. why aren't they forced to cover them up?
    I always thought breasts were for playing with?

    Except for fat guys' breasts though.
    Post edited by Kat on
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    edited April 21

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    mace1229 said:

    I think that thing about the nipples being formed before gender being assigned isn't really accurate.
    The gender is determined at fertilization, the father either gives an X or Y, that never changes weeks into pregnancy.

    What actually happens is the embryo cant decode DNA and reproduce cells on its own, so it uses help from the Mother for the first weeks weeks of development and begins to grow basic features in all humans. It is in these first few weeks nipples are formed, before the embryo can begin to develop on its own.

    Not that it really changes the topic at hand, but I don't see it as accurate to say gender is not assigned at fertilization.

    To answer your question, no I dont think it should be legal.
    Society sees a female nipple as a sexual organ. Almost every man does.
    What would be the point to try to change the perception society has? Sure, if you make it legal it may be more and more common, and maybe within a few decades be almost normal, but what advantage would that be? I just don't see any reason in going out of the way to try and change a common perception unless you can show me there are some negative affects for considering the nipple a sexual organ. So why do it?
    If perception changes then change the law, but there's no need to try and change the perception first.

    simple: females should enjoy the same rights as males. many women find it very restrictive, especially in really hot summers. I can't imagine society telling me that I have to keep my shirt on when it's +40. it's bad enough that women are shamed if they don't wear a bra.

    my wife went topless in the dominican at our resort. there were kids around. many european. no one batted an eye. it just wasn't an issue. everyone was comfortable, there were no grown men or young boys oggling anyone. it was perfectly normal, and my wife loved it for how freeing it was.

    even in mexico a few weeks ago a few women were topless, and it wasn't an issue. however, something I found hilarious and weird, is that at the play structure at an ajoining resort we visited had signs up saying "no topless" where the kids playing were all 12 and under. That's the age group that wouldn't even fucking notice!

    "the way it's always been" is a terrible argument. I hear that at work all the time from the people who have been here for 20+ years and refuse change for the sake of change.

    and it hasn't always been that way. it's been that way since religion told us it was so. in many cultures it isn't that way. of course, your average north american doesn't sexualize those women because they aren't "perky" from wearing bras their entire lives. all of a sudden, being natural isn't so sexual.

    personally, it makes no difference to me. if anything, it would make my life radically uncomfortable. I have two daughters. one is pre-teen. it would make my life a living anxiety attack if it were legal and she were to take advantage of such a law. although, I was trying to find something about the legalities of it in Canada, and while it hasn't gone to the supreme court, I believe it is legal in at least a few provinces.

    it just got me thinking because the other day my 7 year old daughter just came out and asked "Daddy, why do women have to wear shirts and men don't have to?". I am becoming more and more aware that I'm going to have to explain to my daughter all of the oppressive things they are going to have to deal with in their lives for no other reason than men can be assholes.
    I dont think the hot summers is a good argument. A bikini top is not going to make any difference when it comes to being hot. And on the flip side, I'm required to wear long pants and closed shoes at my work, while my female coworkers get to wear short flowing skirts and flip flops (because flip flops are dressy on girls?). Sure, if I really wanted to push the issue and claim to be transgender I could probably get away with it for fear of legal recourse, but why cant I wear shorts and flip flops? My point is, I dont think that is a very good argument.

    "Thats the way its been" may be a terrible argument. But arguing "everyone else does it" is equally bad, if not worse.
    Your bigger argument seems that we don't charge for fear of change while claiming we should conform to the rest of the world? Why do we care what Europe does? If it is normal to walk around topless in Europe then thats great for Europe. How does that affect North America?

    I'm not saying to fear change or even repress it. But how you view fear of change as a negative, I probably view pushing for change for the sake of change as an equal negative. Which sounds like the case and leaves my to my first question; if most people, and even more women, are uncomfortable with it, why push it (aside from hot summer days and Europe)?
    Your argument is essentially "I and most other men find breasts sexy so women should cover them up in public". You do realize that is pretty much the argument for the hijab and burka, right? The argument that men just find women so damn sexy that they can't control themselves, so women have to control that by covering up.

    A lot of men find women's hair sexy; should women cover their hair, too? What about shapely legs? Should we harken back to the Victorians and cover them, too? And why should what you find sexually attractive determine how women can dress?
    Not even close to what I was saying. Please read the thread carefully before jumping to conclusions.
    That was the most inaccurate and idiotic response I've seen in a long time. Where did I or anyone else make the statement or imply this is because men cant control themselves? No where. No where has anyone even suggested a burka or victorian clothing. Its what ALL of society feels more comfortable with.
    Who is determining how women can dress? Because there is a law that prevents women from showing body parts that are deemed sexual? So you don't have the right to tell me not to wave my genitals around then? I mean, who are you to tell me how to dress....
    The OP even said that more women than men are against making it legal.
    What I did say was the vast majority of society, including mostly women, do not feel comfortable making it legal. So why push it?
    What you are saying is ignore what the majority wishes for, and push the country in a different direction anyway, but go ahead and accuse someone of radical Islam so my opinion sounds more profound.

    You are the only one to bring up how men feel into the debate. All I said was why push for change when the majority don't want it. And from that you jump to burkas and hijabs and men being out of control? Seriously? How in the world did you make that leap? One person mentioned men and thier inability to control themselves, and that was you. But somehow that is my argument? Did you even read anything that was written, or did you just start typing away?

    I mean geesh, if more women don't want it legal why are you hiding behind women's rights as your cause to see more breasts? Why do you feel the need to tell women what to wear and push YOUR agenda? And anyone who doesnt agree with YOU compare them to radical nations who dont have women's rights because they dont share the same beliefs as you about nudity.
    it's not an agenda to see more breasts. jesus. you claim that it is someone else who mentioned that men can't control themselves, but here you are stating that we want women to go topless so we can see more titties. that's preposterous and insulting.

    it's not OUR AGENDA. it's so WOMEN HAVE THE SAME OPTIONS AS MEN. no one is telling women they are REQUIRED to go topless. how did you get to that? do what makes you feel comfortable. if you want to wear clothing up to your eyes, have at it.

    No, you can't put your junk out for all to see. Those are genitals, and everyone's, male and female, stay hidden. Women's breasts are not sexual organs. they play zero part in conception. they are there for one purpose: food for babies. it doesn't matter if it's the perception of the majority that they are: the point is they aren't. the majority think they are because society said they are.

    many older and/or fatter men have breasts that look exactly like women's. why aren't they forced to cover them up?
    I always thought breasts were for playing with?

    Except for fat guys' breasts though.
    they certainly can be. but so is the bum. and we, for some reason, allow that to fly free as long as there is some dental floss covering up the starfish.
    Post edited by Kat on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 10,605
    edited April 21
    and honestly, if my agenda was to simply see more breasts, this wouldn't be the way to go about it. 90% of the breasts out there, when not supported, and/or after a certain age, don't exactly fit the criteria that most men fantasize about anyway.
    Post edited by Kat on
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.