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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
i sighted ONE poll and mace is using it as gospel.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
It's not illegal everywhere. A judge in Portland ruled you can be totally naked in public as long as you weren't doing anything sexual. At Stanford a while back some guy fought for his right to hang out and go to class naked.
To be honest, I don't understand why breasts being sexualized is such a bad thing? I mean if we are looking at it equally then obviously women find mens chests attractive as well as other parts. People find other people attractive, so I will never understand the argument "stop sexualling breasts" because they arent a sexual thing or any other part for that matter. People have foot fetishes for crying out loud. If we want equality, then when I wear a dress shirt, I want to be able to unbutton it down a few at work and let my chest air out instead of wearing a tie and have that be perfectly acceptable. Are we not allowed to be sexually attracted to body parts any more? Is intelligence the new boob?
I guess if we could all be allowed to be nudists, the problem is solved. (If one wants to clear out some of their "unique" ways in life, attend Burning Man lol)
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
Should a woman be arrested for showing her bo...breasts? No
Should bo...breasts be allowed to be sexualized like any other nonreproductive body part that gets sexualized? Yes
Can bo...breasts be on display in a mature manner? Yes. I think Rhianna does a very classy job of accentuating her features. If youve got it flaunt it.
How do you define absurdity? Where a message board lets the S word and F word run rampant, but a mod steps in over appropriate use of the "B sub o" word.
Coincidentally, double standards are the fundamental debate that is occuring.
Its not government site and im making no claims that we should be protected under free speech. But the board has posted rules and the mods should stick to moderating only those rules.
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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
i sighted ONE poll and mace is using it as gospel.
I figured the one poll that you cited was worth citing. I haven't done any research on the matter. You said you'd did and that was your result. If it isn't worth citing and don't want others quoting you on it, then don't cite it. It's not gospel, but no one has disputed it.
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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
Men's and women's bodies are different. Makes sense to have laws that reflect those differences.
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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
Men's and women's bodies are different. Makes sense to have laws that reflect those differences.
A woman doesn't need a law restricting her freedom as a human being.
That being said... let common sense prevail: women should pick and choose where they care to hang their 'breasts' out. Beaches, parks, hiking trails, and the like... feel free if that's your thing. Busy campuses are another. That goes for males as well.
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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
Men's and women's bodies are different. Makes sense to have laws that reflect those differences.
A woman doesn't need a law restricting her freedom as a human being.
That being said... let common sense prevail: women should pick and choose where they care to hang their 'breasts' out. Beaches, parks, hiking trails, and the like... feel free if that's your thing. Busy campuses are another. That goes for males as well.
Exactly. I'm not an advocate of everyone being naked in any circumstance. There is a time and a place. But as you said, it should be applied equally to both sexes.
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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
i sighted ONE poll and mace is using it as gospel.
I figured the one poll that you cited was worth citing. I haven't done any research on the matter. You said you'd did and that was your result. If it isn't worth citing and don't want others quoting you on it, then don't cite it. It's not gospel, but no one has disputed it.
be objective about this: if the ONE poll I sighted had not alligned with your personal view, you would have dismissed it entirely based on one of the two following:
1) it's but one poll 2) the bias of the poll or the fact that it doesn't give details about who they polled or what their questions were. 3) the fact I didn't even link to the poll itself
I mentioned it because I found it interesting, which I stated very clearly, not for the validity of it.
Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
i sighted ONE poll and mace is using it as gospel.
I figured the one poll that you cited was worth citing. I haven't done any research on the matter. You said you'd did and that was your result. If it isn't worth citing and don't want others quoting you on it, then don't cite it. It's not gospel, but no one has disputed it.
be objective about this: if the ONE poll I sighted had not alligned with your personal view, you would have dismissed it entirely based on one of the two following:
1) it's but one poll 2) the bias of the poll or the fact that it doesn't give details about who they polled or what their questions were. 3) the fact I didn't even link to the poll itself
I mentioned it because I found it interesting, which I stated very clearly, not for the validity of it.
First, as I mentioned, my personal view on the matter is based on common perception of the female breast. If I believed most women really felt restricted, or that they are no longer sexual then I'd have a different view. I didn't question it because those results didnt surprise me. If I had to guess prior to this thread, those results would have been my prediction. Nothing surprising to me. Now if the results were different like you said, then I probably would have taken 10 minutes to look up a few others. And if the majority of what I saw disagreed I would have posed those questions. But if most didnt, I would not have. Probably just commented how I was surprised, if I said anything at all. This topic interests me because it seems there is a reluctance to admit breasts are sexual, and if you think so then you're an extremist. Which is funny enough to me to read it once or twice a day.
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.
My comments weren't directed towards you. And as I read through them a day later it was a defensive over-reaction to accuse someone of pushing their agenda. I felt it was inappropriate to be told there is no difference between my view and forcing women to wear a burka by simply stating that if the majority of society views it this way, then the law shouldn't change until the common view does. That still sounds like basic common sense to me and am at a lost how that jump was made. I just don't see this as an issue. If a women really feels restricted they can legally get away with wearing next to nothing. Literally if someone wants to be topless at a beach and a bikini isnt close enough, in most places as long as the nipple isnt visible then she is following the law, so use a band-aid or something. They may be not a sexual organ with a reproductive purpose, but our culture sees breasts as a sexual body part. Movies, TV, music, and especially advertisement all reinforce that. You may not have said you want change for change sake. But it seems there is no debate over how society views female breasts. To change the law we would have to change how society views it. I just dont see the point in that. If society changes, then the laws can change, but until then keep the law. I guess the only difference is you don't see the common perception as being important where I do. The actual reproductive role to me has no bearing on the matter, to me it is all public perception. Public perception is very important. Why is a bad word a bad word? It is just sounds and vibrations, literally. But we can't say the F-word over public airwaves and network stations that are free to the public because society had portrayed those sounds as bad. There is nothing inherently bad about those sounds, it is what society has deemed inappropriate for children. Public perception is everything, and if the majority view a body part as an intimate part, then it is. It isn't a sexist/women's rights issue/men cant control themselves/old men trying to control women or any of the other reasons mentioned, especially when more women than men feel this way.
This is a women's rights issue. If you are telling women they can't do something that a man can do, you are restricting their rights. It really is that simple.
Showing the nipple in public is considered nudity in this country. How are they being restricted, seriously? What can a woman not do as a result of covering her nipple? And it keeps being brought back to men telling women they can't do it. Not true, one of my points is that more women feel uncomfortable with this law than men do. If the majority of women want it this way, how is it sexist and restrictive to women's rights? I don't feel strongly about this law as long as culture considers it nudity then the law shouldn't change. If culture changes then change the law. I don't think I am answer yet. Why change it consider the majority of women don't want to change it, and modern culture doesn't accept it? What is the benefit. Don't say women's rights because more women will be upset if it is changed.
Men can show their nipples in public, women can't. Do you understand how that's not equal?
I don't see how this is hard to understand....it's very simple.
I would like to see these stats that you keep referring to where women feel that men should be able to show their nipples in public and women shouldn't.
i sighted ONE poll and mace is using it as gospel.
I figured the one poll that you cited was worth citing. I haven't done any research on the matter. You said you'd did and that was your result. If it isn't worth citing and don't want others quoting you on it, then don't cite it. It's not gospel, but no one has disputed it.
be objective about this: if the ONE poll I sighted had not alligned with your personal view, you would have dismissed it entirely based on one of the two following:
1) it's but one poll 2) the bias of the poll or the fact that it doesn't give details about who they polled or what their questions were. 3) the fact I didn't even link to the poll itself
I mentioned it because I found it interesting, which I stated very clearly, not for the validity of it.
First, as I mentioned, my personal view on the matter is based on common perception of the female breast. If I believed most women really felt restricted, or that they are no longer sexual then I'd have a different view. I didn't question it because those results didnt surprise me. If I had to guess prior to this thread, those results would have been my prediction. Nothing surprising to me. Now if the results were different like you said, then I probably would have taken 10 minutes to look up a few others. And if the majority of what I saw disagreed I would have posed those questions. But if most didnt, I would not have. Probably just commented how I was surprised, if I said anything at all. This topic interests me because it seems there is a reluctance to admit breasts are sexual, and if you think so then you're an extremist. Which is funny enough to me to read it once or twice a day.
there is no reluctance to admit breasts are perceived to be sexual in most western cultures, but biologically they are not sexual organs. do they induce arrousal in most males? of course they do, because we have grown up with them being hidden, being conditioned that their role in the world is sexual in nature (the same as a vagina), which they are not. had we all grown up with breasts out everywhere, I think we can all agree that would simply not be the case.
you have mentioned a few times this "extremist" thing. I don't think anyone called you an extremist. I believe one person just noted the parallels in believing it is perfectly acceptable for women be told by men (historically speaking) what is considered appropriate to show and other cultures that still do the same, in a way more extreme sense. but no one called you extreme, specifically.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
and I still don't understand why your personal views are linked to common perceptions. I find that odd. I personally favour science and fact over public perception.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I don't think so. In fact we all do it. There's no science behind what offends people. What is it based on if not public opinion? The N word is only offensive because we say it is. There's no science behind those vibrations offending people of color, it is purely public opinion (based on its origin of course, but we still give that word meaning, the word itself is meaningless), but still there is no science behind what is offensive. Why are we not allowed to say the F-word on network television? Public opinion is that it is bad and offensive. Why are we referring to them as "breasts" instead of "boobs"? Because some on here thought that was an offensive term. I personally don't think so, but I have a choice to say "Screw you, I'm going to say it anyway because I don't agree with you and you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech," or to just chose not to say it and move on. Now do I believe that it is a "bad " word as a result? No I don't. But I do think if many find it offensive then it is a word that should not be allowed. What am I losing by not saying it? What we can/cant say here, at work, around mixed company isn't always what we think and feel, but often how we feel others will react to it. It is common courtesy. Now I know the argument is going to be to equate my example to men are allowed to say "boobs" but a woman will be banned for using that word. I don't see it that way. Men's and women's bodies are different, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to say men have the right to show their nipple, women should too. They are different. And if public opinion states that one is offensive, then it is.
I don't think so. In fact we all do it. There's no science behind what offends people. What is it based on if not public opinion? The N word is only offensive because we say it is. There's no science behind those vibrations offending people of color, it is purely public opinion (based on its origin of course, but we still give that word meaning, the word itself is meaningless), but still there is no science behind what is offensive. Why are we not allowed to say the F-word on network television? Public opinion is that it is bad and offensive. Why are we referring to them as "breasts" instead of "boobs"? Because some on here thought that was an offensive term. I personally don't think so, but I have a choice to say "Screw you, I'm going to say it anyway because I don't agree with you and you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech," or to just chose not to say it and move on. Now do I believe that it is a "bad " word as a result? No I don't. But I do think if many find it offensive then it is a word that should not be allowed. What am I losing by not saying it? What we can/cant say here, at work, around mixed company isn't always what we think and feel, but often how we feel others will react to it. It is common courtesy. Now I know the argument is going to be to equate my example to men are allowed to say "boobs" but a woman will be banned for using that word. I don't see it that way. Men's and women's bodies are different, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to say men have the right to show their nipple, women should too. They are different. And if public opinion states that one is offensive, then it is.
it's called context. but I still make up my own mind. I don't just subscribe to the "well, if everyone else thinks it's this way, then so do I" mantra.
and I never said science dictates what offends people. I was talking about science in the context of what constitutes a sex organ and what doesn't.
I still can't believe someone will come out and admit they follow what everyone else thinks, regardless of their own brain.
yikes.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
It is legal for women to be topless in public in BC (even though some cops actually forget that and shame topless women anyway once in a while). And this is, of course, as it should be. It is totally ridiculous for men to be able to take off their shirts and for women not. to. I find that idea completely insulting. That said, I wouldn't be caught dead walking around topless in public myself, lol. But the right to do so seems like an obvious given to me. The problem for women is that men leer and comment, etc., when a woman actually does this. So while the law is up to date, men's attitudes sure aren't. I think it's actually kind of sick that breasts are seen so much as sexual organs as they are. Talk about a mass Oedipus complex. But it seems that in societies where women don't cover up, like in tribal cultures, nobody gives it a second thought. So as usual, making breastfeeding and breasts in general a secret and covered out of modesty causes people to see them as overtly sexual. There was a time when a bared ankle was considered sexual, so that makes me assume that whatever is regularly covered becomes sexual to men, lol. And I don't see that ever changing now that breast are seen in a such a sexual way and there is a really unfair expectation when it comes to what breasts are supposed to look like now. Women aren't going to put themselves through generations of ridicule and sexual harassment so that bared breasts become accepted as normal in all their forms.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
It is legal for women to be topless in public in BC (even though some cops actually forget that and shame topless women anyway once in a while). And this is, of course, as it should be. It is totally ridiculous for men to be able to take off their shirts and for women not. to. I find that idea completely insulting. That said, I wouldn't be caught dead walking around topless in public myself, lol. But the right to do so seems like an obvious given to me. The problem for women is that men leer and comment, etc., when a woman actually does this. So while the law is up to date, men's attitudes sure aren't. I think it's actually kind of sick that breasts are seen so much as sexual organs as they are. Talk about a mass Oedipus complex. But it seems that in societies where women don't cover up, like in tribal cultures, nobody gives it a second thought. So as usual, making breastfeeding and breasts in general a secret and covered out of modesty causes people to see them as overtly sexual. There was a time when a bared ankle was considered sexual, so that makes me assume that whatever is regularly covered becomes sexual to men, lol. And I don't see that ever changing now that breast are seen in a such a sexual way and there is a really unfair expectation when it comes to what breasts are supposed to look like now. Women aren't going to put themselves through generations of ridicule and sexual harassment so that bared breasts become accepted as normal in all their forms.
i made this exact point earlier. thank you.
i do think there is a change happening. slowly, but it is happening. now that women are confident enough on a general scale to march through the streets and tell everyone (not just men, but oppressive people in general) that they aren't going to take it anymore, attitudes will change.
but yes, there's very few women that would actually go out topless anywhere but a march or nude beach. and that's fine. do what makes you feel comfortable. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them to if they wish.
i still think it's hilarious that people get all bent out of shape about people being bare-breasted around children. they are the ones who care the LEAST about bare breasts. LOL.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
It is legal for women to be topless in public in BC (even though some cops actually forget that and shame topless women anyway once in a while). And this is, of course, as it should be. It is totally ridiculous for men to be able to take off their shirts and for women not. to. I find that idea completely insulting. That said, I wouldn't be caught dead walking around topless in public myself, lol. But the right to do so seems like an obvious given to me. The problem for women is that men leer and comment, etc., when a woman actually does this. So while the law is up to date, men's attitudes sure aren't. I think it's actually kind of sick that breasts are seen so much as sexual organs as they are. Talk about a mass Oedipus complex. But it seems that in societies where women don't cover up, like in tribal cultures, nobody gives it a second thought. So as usual, making breastfeeding and breasts in general a secret and covered out of modesty causes people to see them as overtly sexual. There was a time when a bared ankle was considered sexual, so that makes me assume that whatever is regularly covered becomes sexual to men, lol. And I don't see that ever changing now that breast are seen in a such a sexual way and there is a really unfair expectation when it comes to what breasts are supposed to look like now. Women aren't going to put themselves through generations of ridicule and sexual harassment so that bared breasts become accepted as normal in all their forms.
Good read. Though I do think you are wrong on 1 account, it isn't just men that leer and comment....women do the same to shirtless men that they find attractive.
It is legal for women to be topless in public in BC (even though some cops actually forget that and shame topless women anyway once in a while). And this is, of course, as it should be. It is totally ridiculous for men to be able to take off their shirts and for women not. to. I find that idea completely insulting. That said, I wouldn't be caught dead walking around topless in public myself, lol. But the right to do so seems like an obvious given to me. The problem for women is that men leer and comment, etc., when a woman actually does this. So while the law is up to date, men's attitudes sure aren't. I think it's actually kind of sick that breasts are seen so much as sexual organs as they are. Talk about a mass Oedipus complex. But it seems that in societies where women don't cover up, like in tribal cultures, nobody gives it a second thought. So as usual, making breastfeeding and breasts in general a secret and covered out of modesty causes people to see them as overtly sexual. There was a time when a bared ankle was considered sexual, so that makes me assume that whatever is regularly covered becomes sexual to men, lol. And I don't see that ever changing now that breast are seen in a such a sexual way and there is a really unfair expectation when it comes to what breasts are supposed to look like now. Women aren't going to put themselves through generations of ridicule and sexual harassment so that bared breasts become accepted as normal in all their forms.
Good read. Though I do think you are wrong on 1 account, it isn't just men that leer and comment....women do the same to shirtless men that they find attractive.
They do? I've never seen women behaving the same way as some men do in this context. Not even close. I mean, I'm sure some stare and whatnot, but do you really think the way pervo men act towards a topless woman walking around and how some more forward women act with topless men walking around is comparable? I really don't at all. Men can be really aggressive and actually scary sometimes, and start following you ominously, and you start worrying that he's going to grab you (and sometimes they actually do). I don't think men deal with the same thing, do they?? Excluding very unusual exceptions? Also, topless men are normal, topless women cause a stir. I'm not sure you can compare the two. But I do acknowledge that there are plenty of women who will get super catty and bitchy towards other women who are topless.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think so. In fact we all do it. There's no science behind what offends people. What is it based on if not public opinion? The N word is only offensive because we say it is. There's no science behind those vibrations offending people of color, it is purely public opinion (based on its origin of course, but we still give that word meaning, the word itself is meaningless), but still there is no science behind what is offensive. Why are we not allowed to say the F-word on network television? Public opinion is that it is bad and offensive. Why are we referring to them as "breasts" instead of "boobs"? Because some on here thought that was an offensive term. I personally don't think so, but I have a choice to say "Screw you, I'm going to say it anyway because I don't agree with you and you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech," or to just chose not to say it and move on. Now do I believe that it is a "bad " word as a result? No I don't. But I do think if many find it offensive then it is a word that should not be allowed. What am I losing by not saying it? What we can/cant say here, at work, around mixed company isn't always what we think and feel, but often how we feel others will react to it. It is common courtesy. Now I know the argument is going to be to equate my example to men are allowed to say "boobs" but a woman will be banned for using that word. I don't see it that way. Men's and women's bodies are different, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to say men have the right to show their nipple, women should too. They are different. And if public opinion states that one is offensive, then it is.
it's called context. but I still make up my own mind. I don't just subscribe to the "well, if everyone else thinks it's this way, then so do I" mantra.
and I never said science dictates what offends people. I was talking about science in the context of what constitutes a sex organ and what doesn't.
I still can't believe someone will come out and admit they follow what everyone else thinks, regardless of their own brain.
yikes.
There is a difference between a "Sex organ" and a body part being sexualized. It doesn't have to have a reproductive purpose to be considered sexualized. Then answer my question. How do you determine what is offensive? You only use your brain? So if it is offensive to you then its offensive, and if it isn't, then its not? I only mentioned "follow what everyone else thinks" in terms of what is considered offensive to others. So seriously, what barometer do you use to gauge that? I'm not sure why that sounds like such backwards talk to be considerate of others..... yikes.
My view is simple. If the majority of people consider it offensive, then there should at least be regulations as to when and where it is allowed, if at all. I only assumed majority find it offensive because that was quoted. But if its that big of an issue, let the states vote on it (or would that be following what everyone else thinks?). Let only women vote for all I care. And if still most women find it offensive I don't know what the argument would be. And if not, then free them up.
I don't think so. In fact we all do it. There's no science behind what offends people. What is it based on if not public opinion? The N word is only offensive because we say it is. There's no science behind those vibrations offending people of color, it is purely public opinion (based on its origin of course, but we still give that word meaning, the word itself is meaningless), but still there is no science behind what is offensive. Why are we not allowed to say the F-word on network television? Public opinion is that it is bad and offensive. Why are we referring to them as "breasts" instead of "boobs"? Because some on here thought that was an offensive term. I personally don't think so, but I have a choice to say "Screw you, I'm going to say it anyway because I don't agree with you and you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech," or to just chose not to say it and move on. Now do I believe that it is a "bad " word as a result? No I don't. But I do think if many find it offensive then it is a word that should not be allowed. What am I losing by not saying it? What we can/cant say here, at work, around mixed company isn't always what we think and feel, but often how we feel others will react to it. It is common courtesy. Now I know the argument is going to be to equate my example to men are allowed to say "boobs" but a woman will be banned for using that word. I don't see it that way. Men's and women's bodies are different, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to say men have the right to show their nipple, women should too. They are different. And if public opinion states that one is offensive, then it is.
it's called context. but I still make up my own mind. I don't just subscribe to the "well, if everyone else thinks it's this way, then so do I" mantra.
and I never said science dictates what offends people. I was talking about science in the context of what constitutes a sex organ and what doesn't.
I still can't believe someone will come out and admit they follow what everyone else thinks, regardless of their own brain.
yikes.
There is a difference between a "Sex organ" and a body part being sexualized. It doesn't have to have a reproductive purpose to be considered sexualized. Then answer my question. How do you determine what is offensive? You only use your brain? So if it is offensive to you then its offensive, and if it isn't, then its not? I only mentioned "follow what everyone else thinks" in terms of what is considered offensive to others. So seriously, what barometer do you use to gauge that? I'm not sure why that sounds like such backwards talk to be considerate of others..... yikes.
My view is simple. If the majority of people consider it offensive, then there should at least be regulations as to when and where it is allowed, if at all. I only assumed majority find it offensive because that was quoted. But if its that big of an issue, let the states vote on it (or would that be following what everyone else thinks?). Let only women vote for all I care. And if still most women find it offensive I don't know what the argument would be. And if not, then free them up.
because you stated unequivocally that 'if the public perceives it to be offensive, then it is'. you never once mentioned anything about being considerate to others. and how is it inconsiderate to make them look away if they don't like something? should someone not dye their hair pink becuase i think it looks atrocious? no. you do you. i'll do me.
if i find it offensive, i find it offensive. if it's not to me, it doesn't mean it's not to others. or if it is to me, it doesn't mean someone is wrong for thinking it's not.
as someone else mentioned, anything can and honestly is sexualized. because of the rampant amount of foot fetishists out there, should everyone be confined to wearing closed-toe shoes?
yes, i use my own brain. you don't?
my barometer is my own common sense.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I don't think so. In fact we all do it. There's no science behind what offends people. What is it based on if not public opinion? The N word is only offensive because we say it is. There's no science behind those vibrations offending people of color, it is purely public opinion (based on its origin of course, but we still give that word meaning, the word itself is meaningless), but still there is no science behind what is offensive. Why are we not allowed to say the F-word on network television? Public opinion is that it is bad and offensive. Why are we referring to them as "breasts" instead of "boobs"? Because some on here thought that was an offensive term. I personally don't think so, but I have a choice to say "Screw you, I'm going to say it anyway because I don't agree with you and you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech," or to just chose not to say it and move on. Now do I believe that it is a "bad " word as a result? No I don't. But I do think if many find it offensive then it is a word that should not be allowed. What am I losing by not saying it? What we can/cant say here, at work, around mixed company isn't always what we think and feel, but often how we feel others will react to it. It is common courtesy. Now I know the argument is going to be to equate my example to men are allowed to say "boobs" but a woman will be banned for using that word. I don't see it that way. Men's and women's bodies are different, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to say men have the right to show their nipple, women should too. They are different. And if public opinion states that one is offensive, then it is.
it's called context. but I still make up my own mind. I don't just subscribe to the "well, if everyone else thinks it's this way, then so do I" mantra.
and I never said science dictates what offends people. I was talking about science in the context of what constitutes a sex organ and what doesn't.
I still can't believe someone will come out and admit they follow what everyone else thinks, regardless of their own brain.
yikes.
There is a difference between a "Sex organ" and a body part being sexualized. It doesn't have to have a reproductive purpose to be considered sexualized. Then answer my question. How do you determine what is offensive? You only use your brain? So if it is offensive to you then its offensive, and if it isn't, then its not? I only mentioned "follow what everyone else thinks" in terms of what is considered offensive to others. So seriously, what barometer do you use to gauge that? I'm not sure why that sounds like such backwards talk to be considerate of others..... yikes.
My view is simple. If the majority of people consider it offensive, then there should at least be regulations as to when and where it is allowed, if at all. I only assumed majority find it offensive because that was quoted. But if its that big of an issue, let the states vote on it (or would that be following what everyone else thinks?). Let only women vote for all I care. And if still most women find it offensive I don't know what the argument would be. And if not, then free them up.
Actually, HFD's original statement was that more women than men were opposed to the idea of women being legally permitted to be topless. He did not say "the majority " were opposed, and certainly never said that the majority were offended. That has been your stance throughout.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I don't think so. In fact we all do it. There's no science behind what offends people. What is it based on if not public opinion? The N word is only offensive because we say it is. There's no science behind those vibrations offending people of color, it is purely public opinion (based on its origin of course, but we still give that word meaning, the word itself is meaningless), but still there is no science behind what is offensive. Why are we not allowed to say the F-word on network television? Public opinion is that it is bad and offensive. Why are we referring to them as "breasts" instead of "boobs"? Because some on here thought that was an offensive term. I personally don't think so, but I have a choice to say "Screw you, I'm going to say it anyway because I don't agree with you and you don't have the right to restrict my freedom of speech," or to just chose not to say it and move on. Now do I believe that it is a "bad " word as a result? No I don't. But I do think if many find it offensive then it is a word that should not be allowed. What am I losing by not saying it? What we can/cant say here, at work, around mixed company isn't always what we think and feel, but often how we feel others will react to it. It is common courtesy. Now I know the argument is going to be to equate my example to men are allowed to say "boobs" but a woman will be banned for using that word. I don't see it that way. Men's and women's bodies are different, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to say men have the right to show their nipple, women should too. They are different. And if public opinion states that one is offensive, then it is.
it's called context. but I still make up my own mind. I don't just subscribe to the "well, if everyone else thinks it's this way, then so do I" mantra.
and I never said science dictates what offends people. I was talking about science in the context of what constitutes a sex organ and what doesn't.
I still can't believe someone will come out and admit they follow what everyone else thinks, regardless of their own brain.
yikes.
There is a difference between a "Sex organ" and a body part being sexualized. It doesn't have to have a reproductive purpose to be considered sexualized. Then answer my question. How do you determine what is offensive? You only use your brain? So if it is offensive to you then its offensive, and if it isn't, then its not? I only mentioned "follow what everyone else thinks" in terms of what is considered offensive to others. So seriously, what barometer do you use to gauge that? I'm not sure why that sounds like such backwards talk to be considerate of others..... yikes.
My view is simple. If the majority of people consider it offensive, then there should at least be regulations as to when and where it is allowed, if at all. I only assumed majority find it offensive because that was quoted. But if its that big of an issue, let the states vote on it (or would that be following what everyone else thinks?). Let only women vote for all I care. And if still most women find it offensive I don't know what the argument would be. And if not, then free them up.
Actually, HFD's original statement was that more women than men were opposed to the idea of women being legally permitted to be topless. He did not say "the majority " were opposed, and certainly never said that the majority were offended. That has been your stance throughout.
Fair point. I made a potentially false assumption with that. To the previous comment, I find a direct link between recognizing what is offensive and being considerate of others. I may not find something offensive, but if I recognize that many do, it would be decent of me to avoid that and very inconsiderate of me to continue that behavior. If I say the word "c*nt" and it offends many I can chose to ignore them and say I have free speach and dont listen to me if you dont like that word, or I can just chose to use another word. I can wear a banana hammock around a family beach and in many places not be breaking the law, but I can recognize it would be rude to simply tell everyone just dont look. I dont think we should be worried about the 1 or 2 people who find something offensive, because someone will always be offended over something. But when it comes to a majority being offended I think that should be taken into consideration. Our society runs on this. Just a year or 2 ago the Confederate flag was taken down in South Carolina because it offended people. Many people just viewed it as a southern pride thing and nothing racist, but many viewed it as a racist image instead. Do you think the governor should have said "I'll do me and you do you"? Tell them to not look at the flag if they don't like it? Of course not. Which was a result of regulations over employees displaying images of the confederate flag, in at least one case a bumper sticker on a car that he was told to remove. People were fired for displaying that image on facebook. I grew up seeing that symbol as slogan for Dukes of Hazzard. Would it not be at the very least extremely inconsiderate of me to tell people who are offended by that to just not look at my shirt if they dont like what they see? If something offends a large population I would considerate that an offensive term/image/whatever and should be avoided.
It is legal for women to be topless in public in BC (even though some cops actually forget that and shame topless women anyway once in a while). And this is, of course, as it should be. It is totally ridiculous for men to be able to take off their shirts and for women not. to. I find that idea completely insulting. That said, I wouldn't be caught dead walking around topless in public myself, lol. But the right to do so seems like an obvious given to me. The problem for women is that men leer and comment, etc., when a woman actually does this. So while the law is up to date, men's attitudes sure aren't. I think it's actually kind of sick that breasts are seen so much as sexual organs as they are. Talk about a mass Oedipus complex. But it seems that in societies where women don't cover up, like in tribal cultures, nobody gives it a second thought. So as usual, making breastfeeding and breasts in general a secret and covered out of modesty causes people to see them as overtly sexual. There was a time when a bared ankle was considered sexual, so that makes me assume that whatever is regularly covered becomes sexual to men, lol. And I don't see that ever changing now that breast are seen in a such a sexual way and there is a really unfair expectation when it comes to what breasts are supposed to look like now. Women aren't going to put themselves through generations of ridicule and sexual harassment so that bared breasts become accepted as normal in all their forms.
Good read. Though I do think you are wrong on 1 account, it isn't just men that leer and comment....women do the same to shirtless men that they find attractive.
They do? I've never seen women behaving the same way as some men do in this context. Not even close. I mean, I'm sure some stare and whatnot, but do you really think the way pervo men act towards a topless woman walking around and how some more forward women act with topless men walking around is comparable? I really don't at all. Men can be really aggressive and actually scary sometimes, and start following you ominously, and you start worrying that he's going to grab you (and sometimes they actually do). I don't think men deal with the same thing, do they?? Excluding very unusual exceptions? Also, topless men are normal, topless women cause a stir. I'm not sure you can compare the two. But I do acknowledge that there are plenty of women who will get super catty and bitchy towards other women who are topless.
Yes. They do. Implying that women are far superior to men for restraining themselves from admiring the opposite sex is a little pompous. I've seen women behave very inappropriately in a multitude of settings just as I've seen men do the same.
At the moment and for better or worse, the reality is that breasts are sexual in nature. Pervo men ogling topless women would initially and naturally be the norm if women began to walk around topless in greater numbers- such an event would be peculiar. In time, with more women walking around with their 'breasts' out... men would eventually lose interest in them.
This is a tough one. Saying a man can go shirtless in public but not a woman is definitely not right. However, we are animals. While I agree that a woman should be able to walk around topless without a man grabbing her, etc. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a man wouldn't walk backwards in front of her to get a good look.
If you want to be topless you can't get upset when people comment and gawk is my point I guess.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I wasn't comparing nudity to slavery. It was an example of how something that doesnt offend me can still offend many others. I was just pointing out that to many the confederate flag doesnt have that meaning. A lot who grew up in the 80s see the confederate flag and literally think Dukes of Hazzard. I had 2 lunch boxes growing up, Dukes of Hazzard and A-Team. I never associated that with slavery or racism until much later in life. And it seems you completely missed my point. Lots of people growing up in southern California in the 80s and early 90s would display the flag for reasons other than racism. Just because it doesn't offend me since I associate it with a TV show, doesnt mean it isnt offensive and isnt something that should be displayed. I would never carry my lunch on that lunchbox now because of how it offends other people. They wouldnt even make thsoe lunch boxes today, and my kid would probably be suspended if he took it to school. Nudity isnt slavery, but if it does offend the majority of the population it should be censored.
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.
Some countries (middle eastern) still require women to cover themselves so as not to tempt a man. Really weird.
I am not even comfortable going to our neighborhood pool because I don't want to run into a client while I'm half naked. That's probably weird but that's the way it is.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
This is a tough one. Saying a man can go shirtless in public but not a woman is definitely not right. However, we are animals. While I agree that a woman should be able to walk around topless without a man grabbing her, etc. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a man wouldn't walk backwards in front of her to get a good look.
If you want to be topless you can't get upset when people comment and gawk is my point I guess.
Or people could grow up and at least not make comments. Some gawking, or at least double takes in surprise, is expected but I think this would honestly fall under the "yes, you can restrain your reactions" part.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
-EV 8/14/93
I guess if we could all be allowed to be nudists, the problem is solved. (If one wants to clear out some of their "unique" ways in life, attend Burning Man lol)
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
Should bo...breasts be allowed to be sexualized like any other nonreproductive body part that gets sexualized? Yes
Can bo...breasts be on display in a mature manner? Yes. I think Rhianna does a very classy job of accentuating her features. If youve got it flaunt it.
How do you define absurdity? Where a message board lets the S word and F word run rampant, but a mod steps in over appropriate use of the "B sub o" word.
Coincidentally, double standards are the fundamental debate that is occuring.
Its not government site and im making no claims that we should be protected under free speech. But the board has posted rules and the mods should stick to moderating only those rules.
It's not gospel, but no one has disputed it.
That being said... let common sense prevail: women should pick and choose where they care to hang their 'breasts' out. Beaches, parks, hiking trails, and the like... feel free if that's your thing. Busy campuses are another. That goes for males as well.
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
1) it's but one poll
2) the bias of the poll or the fact that it doesn't give details about who they polled or what their questions were.
3) the fact I didn't even link to the poll itself
I mentioned it because I found it interesting, which I stated very clearly, not for the validity of it.
-EV 8/14/93
I didn't question it because those results didnt surprise me. If I had to guess prior to this thread, those results would have been my prediction. Nothing surprising to me.
Now if the results were different like you said, then I probably would have taken 10 minutes to look up a few others. And if the majority of what I saw disagreed I would have posed those questions. But if most didnt, I would not have. Probably just commented how I was surprised, if I said anything at all.
This topic interests me because it seems there is a reluctance to admit breasts are sexual, and if you think so then you're an extremist. Which is funny enough to me to read it once or twice a day.
you have mentioned a few times this "extremist" thing. I don't think anyone called you an extremist. I believe one person just noted the parallels in believing it is perfectly acceptable for women be told by men (historically speaking) what is considered appropriate to show and other cultures that still do the same, in a way more extreme sense. but no one called you extreme, specifically.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
What we can/cant say here, at work, around mixed company isn't always what we think and feel, but often how we feel others will react to it. It is common courtesy.
Now I know the argument is going to be to equate my example to men are allowed to say "boobs" but a woman will be banned for using that word. I don't see it that way. Men's and women's bodies are different, so it doesn't seem like a fair comparison to say men have the right to show their nipple, women should too. They are different. And if public opinion states that one is offensive, then it is.
and I never said science dictates what offends people. I was talking about science in the context of what constitutes a sex organ and what doesn't.
I still can't believe someone will come out and admit they follow what everyone else thinks, regardless of their own brain.
yikes.
-EV 8/14/93
i do think there is a change happening. slowly, but it is happening. now that women are confident enough on a general scale to march through the streets and tell everyone (not just men, but oppressive people in general) that they aren't going to take it anymore, attitudes will change.
but yes, there's very few women that would actually go out topless anywhere but a march or nude beach. and that's fine. do what makes you feel comfortable. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow them to if they wish.
i still think it's hilarious that people get all bent out of shape about people being bare-breasted around children. they are the ones who care the LEAST about bare breasts. LOL.
-EV 8/14/93
Then answer my question. How do you determine what is offensive? You only use your brain? So if it is offensive to you then its offensive, and if it isn't, then its not? I only mentioned "follow what everyone else thinks" in terms of what is considered offensive to others. So seriously, what barometer do you use to gauge that?
I'm not sure why that sounds like such backwards talk to be considerate of others..... yikes.
My view is simple. If the majority of people consider it offensive, then there should at least be regulations as to when and where it is allowed, if at all. I only assumed majority find it offensive because that was quoted. But if its that big of an issue, let the states vote on it (or would that be following what everyone else thinks?). Let only women vote for all I care. And if still most women find it offensive I don't know what the argument would be. And if not, then free them up.
if i find it offensive, i find it offensive. if it's not to me, it doesn't mean it's not to others. or if it is to me, it doesn't mean someone is wrong for thinking it's not.
as someone else mentioned, anything can and honestly is sexualized. because of the rampant amount of foot fetishists out there, should everyone be confined to wearing closed-toe shoes?
yes, i use my own brain. you don't?
my barometer is my own common sense.
-EV 8/14/93
To the previous comment, I find a direct link between recognizing what is offensive and being considerate of others. I may not find something offensive, but if I recognize that many do, it would be decent of me to avoid that and very inconsiderate of me to continue that behavior. If I say the word "c*nt" and it offends many I can chose to ignore them and say I have free speach and dont listen to me if you dont like that word, or I can just chose to use another word. I can wear a banana hammock around a family beach and in many places not be breaking the law, but I can recognize it would be rude to simply tell everyone just dont look. I dont think we should be worried about the 1 or 2 people who find something offensive, because someone will always be offended over something. But when it comes to a majority being offended I think that should be taken into consideration. Our society runs on this. Just a year or 2 ago the Confederate flag was taken down in South Carolina because it offended people. Many people just viewed it as a southern pride thing and nothing racist, but many viewed it as a racist image instead. Do you think the governor should have said "I'll do me and you do you"? Tell them to not look at the flag if they don't like it? Of course not. Which was a result of regulations over employees displaying images of the confederate flag, in at least one case a bumper sticker on a car that he was told to remove. People were fired for displaying that image on facebook. I grew up seeing that symbol as slogan for Dukes of Hazzard. Would it not be at the very least extremely inconsiderate of me to tell people who are offended by that to just not look at my shirt if they dont like what they see? If something offends a large population I would considerate that an offensive term/image/whatever and should be avoided.
gimme a break.
-EV 8/14/93
At the moment and for better or worse, the reality is that breasts are sexual in nature. Pervo men ogling topless women would initially and naturally be the norm if women began to walk around topless in greater numbers- such an event would be peculiar. In time, with more women walking around with their 'breasts' out... men would eventually lose interest in them.
If you want to be topless you can't get upset when people comment and gawk is my point I guess.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I was just pointing out that to many the confederate flag doesnt have that meaning. A lot who grew up in the 80s see the confederate flag and literally think Dukes of Hazzard. I had 2 lunch boxes growing up, Dukes of Hazzard and A-Team. I never associated that with slavery or racism until much later in life. And it seems you completely missed my point. Lots of people growing up in southern California in the 80s and early 90s would display the flag for reasons other than racism. Just because it doesn't offend me since I associate it with a TV show, doesnt mean it isnt offensive and isnt something that should be displayed. I would never carry my lunch on that lunchbox now because of how it offends other people. They wouldnt even make thsoe lunch boxes today, and my kid would probably be suspended if he took it to school.
Nudity isnt slavery, but if it does offend the majority of the population it should be censored.
I am not even comfortable going to our neighborhood pool because I don't want to run into a client while I'm half naked. That's probably weird but that's the way it is.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2