Free The Nipple - Thoughts?

oftenreading said:

show previous quotes

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

show previous quotes

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, because slavery and nudity are comparable.

gimme a break.

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.

Gern Blansten said:

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.

Mike Pence would not approve of this.

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

yeah, because slavery and nudity are comparable.

gimme a break.

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.

the difference between me and you, I suppose, is this: I wouldn't display the confederate flag because of what it means to me, not because I don't want people to be mad at me.

Seems you're right. Except its not about them being mad at me. If I didn't want people mad at me I'd never log onto AMT and post a comment. But no matter how big of Hazzards fan I am, I wouldnt paint my car like the General Lee today because of what it does mean to others, even if to me its just about a cheesy 80s TV show. Its not about keeping them from being mad at me, I view it like a sense of respect for others.
I would be completely fine if they banned racist slogans and clothing in public. I dont think yelling "I hate n---ers" in public should be a protected speech. And if you survive long enough doing that, you should face a fine or other consequence. But then it comes down to what is offensive? Theres where I think the common vote rules over my personal opinion. I dont see the confederate flag as offense because I associate it with D of H, but I understand that most view it differently and would be compeltely fine if it wasnt allowed in public anymore.
I understand the logistics of such laws are impossible, but I dont disagree with the idea of it, and restricting hate speech.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

show previous quotes

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

You're the only one talking about who is "far superior". Anyway, I think you are in total denial about the difference between how men are about topless women compared to women about topless men. To say the two are equal in this context is completely ridiculous. But yes, that is a cultural difference as far as bared breasts go. Our culture has made it so that women's breasts are seen by most men as sexual organs, #1. The breastfeeding factor seems secondary, and only a factor when women actually have a baby attached to their nipple. As I mentioned, that is not the case in cultures where women are topless all the time. But it's too late for that in our Judeo-Christian culture, because of all the weirdo prudery and sexualization of women and all their parts that are supposed to be covered.