Topless equal rights?

[Tindy]

I find it annoying that women, technically, can walk around topless with no problems as long as they have pasties of some sort over their nipples.

Oooh, beware the dreaded nips.

That actually seems to be the line for female nudity in america.  As long as you're wearing something that covers your pussy, crack, and nipples, you're all good (except in certain circumstances, obviously.)

PETA people do it all the time - slap some eletrical tape on those buds and you're all good.

I hate that.

Also - men that have bigger breasts than I do really ought to be forced to keep a shirt on plzkthanks.

 

[Zelfouz]

Also - men that have bigger breasts than I do really ought to be forced to keep a shirt on plzkthanks.

I have a problem with deciding what someone has a right to do based on whether or not I find it unattractive. I don't like it when people dye their hair blue, but I would not ask for them to wear a hat in my presence. They have to look at me, too.

 

[Venetia]

Yeah ... If it's unattractive to you ... Look away?

also when you run around all the time without a bra, your boobs start to look like fried eggs hanging on a nail :x

thanks fr that image

no problem i know you're into gmilfs :thumb:

 

[Chalupa]

This post has mentally disturbed me O.O

Although, I do think that women should be able to walk around topless, if they choose to do so.

 

[Ceroscuro]

I thought women had this right in New York?

 

[Venetia]

Yeah, they do. But cops still try to bust them, there've been several lawsuits I've seen on TLC.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

It all comes down to a few arguments honestly, and everything stems from those.  If you come up with an argument that's around, even if it doesn't seem it - it was thought up to back one of the following:

1) Women are servants and are below men and must subjugate themselves to mans whim and desire.  I hope I don't have to go into how stupid this is, nor show the various ways this has been proven to be a thought pattern in the way cultures have run peoples lives.  But, for since I brought it up... let's not forget that a lot of people who fight "sex" as it were, or would call this an article of "sex" do so with religion on their side, and way back when - and god knows today which is so fucking sick - people have used verses in the bible such as hierarchy that show God, Jesus, then Man, with women and ox and donkeys and the sort all kind of clumped together.

Many religions and cultures have deemed the breast an important deal that must be kept safe, and some of these revolve that into kept safe and away from harm or temptation.  Man could in Europe and other countries at times, rape women and get away with it, in Leviticus he would have to pay the father of a virgin money if he raped her, in other books it was unless she tempted him with showing of her breast in which case he was absolved.

2) Sex is wrong dirty and something you should be ashamed of.  This is something white Christians in the day really fucked up more so than the cultures they based parts of theirs on.  If it is involved with sex it is dirty, this includes sexual organs involved with procreation and child rearing - guess what falls under this?  Breasts, that's right.  Breasts are therefore shameful and dirty.  Yes, don't forget people were very stupid back in the day.  The idea that these things could RUIN a child exists.

People honestly believe if you show a 5 year old a woman's breast, he'll be a pervert sex fiend when he grows up.  Forget how many cultures don't have this stigma and have public bath houses, or public nudity where the poorer peoples in the hotter climates are where sexual perverts are not as common as in the Western World.

3) Public affection is crucial to the destruction of civilization.  An ego trip for me, honestly that ingrained itself.  C'mon guys you know what I'm talking about, your girl says "I love you" on the phone when your with your friends - you get that twinge and try to say it in some way so you don't get laughed at, which makes no fucking sense honestly, but even if your married or find cheating revolting you still gotta seem like a dog don't ya.  Bow wow inner methods to the ego cutting off the desire in public, this was even more ingrained back in the days of ye olde days.

Imagine a time where kissing in public was the sign of sins and whores.  There have been cultures that would punish those who did it.  This was a way to control, and to keep the taboo away.

Everything boils down to these three foolish and retarded arguments.  But, the truth isn't always what some believe.
1) The constitution of America declares women and men to be equal.  This is also the case in many countries.  Yet, laws to clothing apply differently.

2) The breast is not dirty.  Nothing but an infected organ is dirty.  Showing breasts to a child does nothing harmful, most children don't even realize they are supposed to enjoy it.  Places that have public nudity have a lower capital of sexual deviancy in locals in non aggressive circumstances (IE: huge parade with lots of alcohol, remove those from the statistic).  And even then, the reason huge parades with alcohol are not really countable is because A: there's non locals, B: it happens everywhere, C: counting just native to native cases are on the same curve as places that have laws against public nudity including the breast.

3) C'mon, old taboos about what should or should not be done so you can control power and run peoples perception of a valid life is a dead concept.  Let it go.

There's nothing wrong with a woman's breast.
All it has that a man's doesn't is the means to produce milk really.  And usually different tan lines.  But I really don't think it's the tan lines we're arguing about - but it's just as silly so we might as well be.

 

[kaze950]

Because in most western cultures, breasts are considered more of a sexual part of the body than a man's chest. If you don't like society's petty rules (which make up most of society's rules), don't live in one.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

. . . wow what an arrogant and completely ignorant statement, worthy of a clap on the back.

Let's alter something here and see if it works... how bout we go back a few dozen decades and see what happens.

Racial equal rights?
Because in most western cultures, black are considered more of an animalistic creature and not a human like white people.  If you don't like society's petty rules (which make up most of society's rules), don't live in one.

How bout this...
If you don't like society's petty rules you get off your ass and you change them, and try to do it so the guy who likes society's petty rules don't get off his ass to stop you.  Ghandi, Malcom X, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, you name someone who'll go down in history for making an impact and -derr- they didn't like society's petty rules.
I suppose they should all live as hermits in a cave and not be part of one?

I swear it's sounding the same mentality of "dis ere be Americas you don't like it get're out!".  The most retarded and asinine mentality I think I've ever had the displeasure of ever knowing about, let alone seeing.  There are people who would believe 100% that because it is, or was it should be - so don't challenge things, don't change things, don't improve.  Forget that that's what we as a species have been doing our whole entire existence, or at the very least striving far in our better nature, just forget all that and stop.  Don't change.  Don't succeed.  Don't make a difference.  If you don't like it, leave.

 

[mawk]

You know, if I could have a nickel for every time I hear this argument...

Personally, this argument pisses the hell out of me, mostly because the "let the women go topless!" argument makes perfect sense on all levels, but it fails to acknowledge that society is set up in such a way that people will overreact if people actually did it. I hate being the devil's advocate, but I think that people should take into account the prevailing social flavour anyway -- whether or not it's high time that it changed, it still exists.

European society had pretty much branded female nipples a sexual organ since they started recognizing those sorts of things for whatever they seemed to be. After all, the nipples were sensitive, hardened when stimulated, and secreted a whitish substance on occasion. Not necessarily the most airtight of cases, but this is the same sort of medical ingenuity that got so many people with fevers killed from blood loss. Since they were now sexual organs in the medical eye, breasts became indecent to show in public. This gradually had a psychological effect on everyone involved throughout generations -- "well if we're not allowed to see them, there must be something to get excited about!" In countries where men and women's chests are equal in terms of exposure and have been for time immemorial, the sight of a breast is no big deal -- "oh, yeah, my wife has those too. Hey, how are the kids doing?"

Now, that's just my take on how the whole perception about dem boobs was perpetrated, and it's mostly unimportant to the point I'm about to make, which is as follows: whether or not they should be held as indecent and taboo, the fact is that our society has considered them as such for a long time now (and the average citizen is very much ruled by the idea of the societal norm,) and people will simply make too big a deal at the sight of a breast in this day and age. In essence, the world isn't ready -- it's not smart or correct, but unless you're willing to have a lengthy ideological discussion with everyone who spots you walking around wild and free, it's really not worth it, as the prevailing reaction will still be oh god you sicko regardless of how solid your arguments in support of your actions are.

In other words -- yes, mm-hmm, good point, it all works out on paper, but don't kid yourself. For the record, I think that society's predispositon towards boobies is outdated and not very reasonable, but the fact is that at the moment it's still unacceptable to show your breasts -- and people aren't going to change that opinon very swiftly. Maybe people can get the world to make a gradual paradigm shift towards acceptance of topless women, but the keyword is gradual -- push the envelope too far right off the bat and it's going to tear. A woman walking topless, getting arrested for indecent exposure, and then bringing the incident into the public eye (along with an explanation of just why it should be acceptable) would be a fine way to start, although I doubt that people would take the issue to heart right off the bat. If you don't feel like explaining why on earth you would scar the children like that oh god you sick person, you should probably keep the tank top on for the time being.

While we're at it, I can think of a few more paradigm shifts that the world needs right about now. Who's with me!?

(Oh shit, I just noticed that my entire post has been stated already in bits and pieces. :x)

 

[FlippyD]

There's nothing more that can be said about the topic, it's pretty unanimous: EVERYONE LOVES BOOBS!! (They're fun for boys and girls of all ages!) Society sucks for blah-blah-blah, we should all blah-blah-blah, we all agree it's blah-blah-blah.

Ok, now go run around outside topless changing the world and breaking down taboos and such. Just make sure you take lots of pictures and post them on here (y'know, pix or it didn't happen.)

I'll be waiting...

Alone at my place with the lights turned off...

 

[Cruelty]

by being a woman, and presenting yourself in public without a shirt in a society where women are always supposed to have a shirt of some kind on, what point do you hope to prove? what do you hope to gain? what's the purpose of it?

if you want to do it 'just because the men can', that's a very poor reason. this isn't an inequality so much as it is just the way our society works, and what is appropriate, and civilized. in the scenario where you just believe 'well, its natural and it isnt strange to me', thats fine, but you should still hold respect for the very basic building blocks of our society, and be willing to adhere to at least the very most basic rule of presenting yourself in appropriate, civilized manner.

you would notice that most men that prefer to go shirtless usually do it in very formal settings. beaches, their homes, around people he is comfortable with, and who are comfortable with him. theres a reason that many establishments, businesses, etc., these places will not allow a man shirtless in their building. it's simply not appropriate for most places/situations, and our societies have progressed to an extent where people should try to present themselves neatly, and appropriately as they can.

if you'd prefer to go against the one thing that separate us from the animals, you better be doing it for a reason; not just because you want to break the 'rules', and openly defy society becausse you don't like the way it works. otherwise you're just carrying out some kind of ostentatious, meaningless self-serving prophecy to fulfill the needs of your ego.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

you should still hold respect for the very basic building blocks of our society, and be willing to adhere to at least the very most basic rule of presenting yourself in appropriate, civilized manner.

See this is what bothers me.  Because a civilized manner is completely ridiculous.

Years ago civilized manners were that women would not walk to the store alone, could not speak in church, could not learn to write.  This was civilized, but it was stupid and unneeded so it was changed.  And yet every time people deemed civilization stood on the pillars of various things, including tradition and perception.

We perceive this to be civilized.  Yet to say that so easily throws out the idea, whether intended or not, that places allowing nudity in our eyes are somehow less than civilized.  That places that just happen to be poorer, but have very substantial laws manage to not count as a modern civil record of humanity.

A man can't wear make up, because... well it's simply not done in a formal setting.  Yet actors and other celebrities do it all the time.  You should not show any indication of nudity in formal settings, yet celebrities do it all the time, and no one says how this is destroying civilization.

I know this isn't the intent of the point, but a casualty of throwing words like building blocks of civilization around so casually has side effects.  Civilization wasn't built on nudity, the only reason we wore clothes to begin with was simply to stay warm, and a sign of social status.  We don't need a sign of social status in today time, a major CEO of a major company can wear sweats and a jean jacket to a meeting and he's still powerful and rich.

Our society tries so hard now to define appropriates.
Casual Fridays pissed people off once.  Still does, it was a disorder in what should be.  Granted we should look our best when our best is demanded simply because people expect that.  They expect a CEO of a major company to wear a thousand dollar suit.  It's vanity.  Pure and simple.

And if anything that's what I'd gain from this, closure to the point that vanity has one more step back to falling off the cliff we've dug with it.  We've separated people by look and practice too long, and it's ridiculous.

Civilized appearance excludes baggy pants hanging halfway down your ass nowadays.  Not long from now, it's already the normal casual so not long from now it could be accepted.  Along with makeup for men, even corpse paint.

We define who we are and what we do not by what we are and what we do, but what we should do and who we should be in someone else's eyes - we judge ourselves by how highly other people better off than us judge us, and that's just sick.

you would notice that most men that prefer to go shirtless usually do it in very formal settings. beaches, their homes, around people he is comfortable with, and who are comfortable with him. theres a reason that many establishments, businesses, etc., these places will not allow a man shirtless in their building. it's simply not appropriate for most places/situations, and our societies have progressed to an extent where people should try to present themselves neatly, and appropriately as they can.

There's a typo there, I believe you meant in informal places.  I make that mistake a lot myself.
I agree here, again simply because it's the way things are, so they'll be.
I know generally most people would rather have the clean cut guy look after their taxes, as opposed to the guy with a grill in his mouth, bling, and baggy pants hanging half way down his ass.
But that doesn't mean the clean cut guy is better prepared for his job, better appointed for his job, or even better behaving or more civilized because his uniform is clean shaven.

if you'd prefer to go against the one thing that separate us from the animals, you better be doing it for a reason; not just because you want to break the 'rules', and openly defy society becausse you don't like the way it works. otherwise you're just carrying out some kind of ostentatious, meaningless self-serving prophecy to fulfill the needs of your ego.

Clothing doesn't separate us from animals.
Opposable thumbs, imagination, and third person thinking separates us from animals.  If clothing separated us, then nudists wouldn't be people, they'd either be animal or be human depending on if they're wearing something.  Maybe their part human?  Demihuman?

Clothing does one thing.  Separates us from the cold.

 

[Cruelty]

i didn't really mean clothing seperates us from the animals, i meant upholding the standards of our societies, and adhering to at least the basic rules that have been in place for nearly as long as this society has existed seperates us from the animals. maybe it's the phrase that was used out of place. i don't know, but it seemed fitting to me?
i don't want to disrespect anyone who may be a nudist (i'm sure theres dozens here :P), or say anyone is less civilized (maybe i did. ohwell.) so much as i was trying to say what you do is your business, but don't go out into public in an unusual fashion, especially one with laws against it (public indecency?), and expect to be accepted, or to change anything.

you know it's cold in a freezer. don't walk in, and stay there, and then then wonder why it's cold.
just the same - you know it's not normal, and in most cases not legal, for a woman to appear topless in public in most scenarios; so don't go out topless and get angered at the repercussions. you know it's not acceptable behavior. it just isn't. lots of people can't do things they would like to do, but they can't; just go with it. you can't have everything your way; and you can't start a coalition over every little inconvenience that you somehow feel isn't fair.

sometime people just need to realize, maybe it's not society as a whole that has a problem; maybe it's you.
we shouldn't have to break down and change the rules every time some fool decides to do something unusual just to make him/her feel better.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I know what you meant, but that doesn't mean other people don't believe what I twisted your word to be, nor does it mean I can't have fun with the literalness of it.

I still have a major problem with your post, particular your second one.  I'm not going to direct quote because I'm either too lazy, but in there you say it's not acceptable, don't do it, just go with it.

Ghandi should have stopped and let everything continue without taking a stand.
Jesus, if your Christian, should've just let sins continue and let mankind be without salvation.
Bob Marley should never have tried to go against the grain with his message and just let the government continue to be corrupt against it's people.
Moses, if your faith is one that believes in him, should've just sat there and not worried about slaves.
Abraham Lincoln shouldn't have cared.
Rosa Parks should've got the hell up and walked her ass to the back seat.

The founding fathers of the US should've never started hassling the British rules and laws, simply because it was socially wrong to do so when they started it.  Forget that we view it as correct now, and eventually so did many others.

There's a difference between views.
Some view this as no big thing and  defend it for various reasons.  Good reasons I have no problem with, but just because it is... that's the stupidest reason in the world, that's as bad as wanting to change it because that's the way it is and, well there's nothing better to do.

But there are dozens of reasons brought up to change it, even in small amounts such as wherever a man can go topless.  A sign reads: No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.  Fine, wear the top.  A sign reads: No Shoes, No Service - tops off if you want them off.  If a man can get away with it, why can't a woman - simply because we view things with vanity and ego, are not good enough reasons to continue.

In the world there are different methods.
"Your reason is not good enough to do it" and "Your reason is not good enough to continue it".  If a reason is not good enough to change things, fine it won't change.  But if your reason isn't good enough to continue the way it is, that's the exact same lack of credibility.  The opposite should occur in both counts, and for most people - there reason for keeping it as is, simply is not good enough.

 

[Stardust]

The whole time I've been reading this, I'm picturing a guy walking along, seeing a topless woman, and walking into a post. :tongue:

Anyway, I think it's stupid that women are restricted on this when men aren't.  It should be their option, just like abortion, but it isn't.  Why?  Because some idiots aren't willing to change their way of thinking.  Seriously, "Do it because it's the normal," is probably the worst excuse ever.  We're in 2008.  Do you know what happens to animals who don't change to suite their environment?  Dead.

I agree that a business should have the option of requiring shirts, just like they do for guys.  But, there are so many other, worse things that could be allowed.  We can't see a booby, but it's OK to kill our lungs with cigarettes.  Also, how are kids going to become perverted from seeing a breast or two?  If anything, it'll lessen the urge to see them, which would probably reduce rape probabilities.  With some of the shirts and bathing suits that are around, you can see almost the entire breast except the nipples, so it's not really a stretch to being topless when you think about it.  It should ultimately be the woman's decision since they're a part of her.  A woman's breasts shouldn't belong to society.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Also, how are kids going to become perverted from seeing a breast or two?  If anything, it'll lessen the urge to see them, which would probably reduce rape probabilities.

In regions with nudity allowed, the locals are far less sexually deviant in cases of rape, molestation, and simple beating and ownership practices of females.

In areas where the practice has a much higher rate of clothing, these numbers aren't so extremely reversed, but they are much higher.

This does not count "third world" regions however, I guess a counter balance to simply using the "civilized" or "Western" worlds, is that it applies actually to us for once.

 

[FlippyD]

I disagree with Guardian's simplistic views that it's "some idiots aren't willing to change their way of thinking", when really it's a complex society of people who have various viewpoints on the subject or just don't give a shit.

Anyway, responding to something said a couple posts back, I can understand Woman's Suffrage. There's a damn good reason it had to take place, women should have the right to vote because politics have a real and important impact on their lives. Same with most of those inhibiting Victorian laws about how a lady should act. But going around topless? It shouldn't be that big a deal, but does anybody care one way or another that bad? I've attended so many life drawing sessions, and worked with so many models that a nude figure doesn't affect me one way or another (unless I'm presented with a naked person in an erotic context.) Because of this I'd say if women were able to run around topless they'd probably do it for a little while, get bored and act like men in the same situation, only getting topless when it's really fucking hot out and you don't plan on running anywhere. Men would also get used to it and life would continue as normal.

But are women really being affected that negatively that the law should be changed "like omg right now!!"? Being topless doesn't seem to benefit women all that much aside from comfort. I had an ex girlfriend who would go topless from time to time just for comfort, but she wouldn't go outside even if the law was removed and men didn't go nuts over the sight of a tit. I can go topless but I don't find myself doing it all too often unless I'm at a pool or something. It really doesn't matter, there are FAR more important women's rights issues to be focusing on right now.

 

[Stardust]

I disagree with Guardian's simplistic views that it's "some idiots aren't willing to change their way of thinking", when really it's a complex society of people who have various viewpoints on the subject or just don't give a shit.

Usually the people who want to refuse someone their rights based off gender, race, or religion are stuck in the old ideas.  But, I see your point, too.  Everyone has a right to their own opinions.  It just seems that certain people are holding society back.  Topless woman aren't really the issue here.  The main issue is the mindset that everyone should conform to society's "standards" whether they want to or not.

 

[Cruelty]

I still have a major problem with your post, particular your second one.  I'm not going to direct quote because I'm either too lazy, but in there you say it's not acceptable, don't do it, just go with it.

Ghandi should have stopped and let everything continue without taking a stand.
Jesus, if your Christian, should've just let sins continue and let mankind be without salvation.
Bob Marley should never have tried to go against the grain with his message and just let the government continue to be corrupt against it's people.
Moses, if your faith is one that believes in him, should've just sat there and not worried about slaves.
Abraham Lincoln shouldn't have cared.
Rosa Parks should've got the hell up and walked her ass to the back seat.

i think theres a big difference between trying to right obvious suffrage and injustices, and women being allowed to show their boobs. remember, i went on to specify "every little inconvenience that you somehow feel isn't fair". this is a minor social issue, and not a global concern.

anyhow;
these individuals, and events, all had justifiable reasons for their actions, and causes. until anyone can come up with any reason other than 'well, men can do it, but we cant so it isnt fair', i fail to see the cause behind any woman wanting to reveal herself in public. it's pointless, and if anything, would more likely than not probably have a negative effect, and an undesired outcome.