Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Poll Question : should women be allowed to be topless in public?
Choice Votes Statistics
Hell yes!!! 80 49 %
Yes, in certain places 64 39 %
No 19 11 %

should women be allowed to be topless in public? Options · View
Dani
Posted: Saturday, September 01, 2012 6:53:09 PM

Rank: Penguin Wrangler

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 3,994
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
Depends on the time and place. I have no issue with women breastfeeding in public. And I don't see what the big deal is, I've never seen a full breast or a nipple when a woman was feeding in public. As far as being topless, come on. Accept it. Women have boobs, men don't (technically). So yes it sucks that we have to keep them under wraps, but it's kind of inappropriate unless it's in the right setting. And I for one don't want everyone seeing my breasts anyways.

But if public nudity is going to be allowed, it shouldn't be based on body types. I would just find it highly inappropriate to stroll into a cafe and see anyone topless, regardless of gender. There's a time and place for everything. And just because it's overlooked, it doesn't mean it's right.

And if women went around topless, it'd open up a whole other can of worms. Females complain when men ogle their breasts through their shirts, so just think of the allegations that would arise if we were topless and just let those babies flop all over the place.

Again, as long as it's in the appropriate setting (beaches, swimming pools, etc.), I don't mind women being topless in public. But I also hold the same opinion for men being shirtless in public.



We're tiny. We're toony. We're all a little looney. And in this cartoony, we're invading your TV.

Guest
Posted: Saturday, September 01, 2012 8:21:30 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,082
I have no problem with that. Everbody should live like she wants. A modern society should tolerate this in parks, on beaches or at pools. On the street the weather will limit it more often then the police evil4
FantasyFiction
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 9:00:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/1/2009
Posts: 282
Location: the Swamps of Jersey
bottom line is this: if it's okay for a man to be topless, it should okay for a woman to be topless.

Success is doing what you love, and doing it so well that someone will pay you for it.
http://www.lushstories.com/fantasyfiction
sexyguy92
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 9:35:49 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 9/1/2012
Posts: 1
Location: United States
Why the he'll not. Adam and Eve did it.
ready4
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 10:29:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/13/2011
Posts: 153
Location: United States
yessss
Oldfaithful
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 11:20:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/18/2012
Posts: 100
Location: United Kingdom
To all who seem to have a gripe against Personalassistant for simply offering her opinion, we have a saying where i come from...

CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN!


1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 11:43:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Oldfaithful wrote:
To all who seem to have a gripe against Personalassistant for simply offering her opinion, we have a saying where i come from...

CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN!


For the record, I don't have a gripe against her and I haven't been anything other than calm as I've tried to understand what she means by her statements and tried to determine whether she understands the implications of her position. She's been evasive. If I had a gripe against everybody who did that, it would severely impact my pursuit of happiness, and that's not worth it.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Warlock
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 12:24:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2012
Posts: 198
Location: Where I need to be right now, United States
I'm old enough to remember when women had to wear dresses below their knees and were restricted from wearing pants except at leisure times.. I also remember equal rights battles both racial and gender based.. this issue seems trivial in comparison and hardly worth the saber rattling that some have gotten into.. my response is that women should have every right that a man has.. and in some cases more rights because of gender, ie breastfeeding, etc... the problem arises when rights are issued unfettered with conditions.. it leaves society in the position of having to depend on the integrity, common sense, and dignity of those who enact their rights.. controls are a necessary evil.. not because of the many.. but because of the few..
VanGogh
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 12:44:50 PM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 2,752
Location: Vancouver, Canada
1ball wrote:
For the record, I don't have a gripe against her and I haven't been anything other than calm as I've tried to understand what she means by her statements and tried to determine whether she understands the implications of her position. She's been evasive. If I had a gripe against everybody who did that, it would severely impact my pursuit of happiness, and that's not worth it.


you could have fooled me and a number of people who have written to me .... it certainly has appeared that both you and Elit have been on a witch-hunt. Was it premeditated?

1. I have stated a few times my position .... you might want to re-read my posts.

2. I have been emphatic on my position, so you cannot call me evasive.

3. Do I understand the implications of my position?? hahaha ... yes, I am fully clothed in public unless I am at Wreck Beach. Again, since you seem to be very unbending and unwilling to figure out my stance on this .... I just do not want to look at a topless woman enroute to work, thanks!!

3. As Warlock has stated, this is very trivial in comparison to some inequalities.

4. As Elit stated in another thread - which sounds like your behaviour in this thread:

elitfromnorth wrote:
... twisting words and doing what [they] can to make it a scandal.


have a great day, kids!!




For the Anal Lovers .... come enjoy my RR honoured An Alluring Ass

Another Sex in the Office Poem (I know you love those!!) In Your Office

* * * * * *
"The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play." - Arnold J. Toynbee
“Everything you can imagine is real.” - Pablo Picasso
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 12:48:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I'm old enough to remember when women were burning bras and men where burning draft cards and there was talk of an equal rights amendment to the Constitution. There is always a price for controls and it seems never an accounting for that price. Controls are what government does, but government's only real purpose is to enable productivity, so any control that has an adverse effect on productivity is dangerous. The entire class of gender-based controls (without a rights justification) falls into that dangerous category, because systemically keeping women more controlled than men limits their competitiveness in the labor pool. That's why I ask, "What right trumps the woman's right to do what she wants?". So far, nobody has had a valid answer for that.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
stephanie
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 12:57:13 PM

Rank: Bohemian

Joined: 1/1/2010
Posts: 4,619
Location: Dublin, Ire., Ireland


Fuck, Yes...

(I'd make it mandatory.....)

xx Steph

(Fuck You, Taliban....)

"I'm a writer... Honesty is not my first language..." (Stephen Flashman)
Warlock
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 1:15:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2012
Posts: 198
Location: Where I need to be right now, United States
1ball wrote:
I'm old enough to remember when women were burning bras and men where burning draft cards and there was talk of an equal rights amendment to the Constitution. There is always a price for controls and it seems never an accounting for that price. Controls are what government does, but government's only real purpose is to enable productivity, so any control that has an adverse effect on productivity is dangerous. The entire class of gender-based controls (without a rights justification) falls into that dangerous category, because systemically keeping women more controlled than men limits their competitiveness in the labor pool. That's why I ask, "What right trumps the woman's right to do what she wants?". So far, nobody has had a valid answer for that.


I'm not sure what validation would be acceptable to you.. there is no right ensuring that anyone can do anything they want.. you say you have a right as a man to go topless.. not in my living room you don't.. that's where your right ends and mine begin.. the point being that having rights works both for you and against you.. and as far as governmental controls.. we all know that is a nonsense argument brought out every time someone wants to trumpet a proposal that might not be universally accepted.. in any case.. we all pay a price to live and survive in a civilized society.. some will pay more than others.. and it is naive to act surprised by that..
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 1:44:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
PersonalAssistant wrote:
you could have fooled me and a number of people who have written to me .... it certainly has appeared that both you and Elit have been on a witch-hunt.


I think you're assuming something that doesn't exist. The fact that other people are also fooled indicates that many others do the same.

Quote:
Was it premeditated?


I'm not sure what "it" is. I only want a simple clear unambiguous yes or no answer to the question, "Do you think it should be illegal for women to be topless in public?" and if you answer "yes" to that question then I might have some followup questions. I don't think you're a witch. I think the equal rights aspect of the question sailed right over your head and now you're just trying to avoid admitting the apparent contradiction between what you said you want and what you probably really want. But that's just a guess. Your refusal to clarify keeps me guessing and that's actually kind of fun, but I'm ready to end the fun when you are.

Quote:
1. I have stated a few times my position .... you might want to re-read my posts.


You have repeatedly refused to clarify. Rereading your posts will show you that.

Quote:
2. I have been emphatic on my position, so you cannot call me evasive.


I have called you evasive, so apparently, I can. You have repeatedly not answered questions that would clarify my understanding of your position. No amount of emphatic regurgitation of a position that is an apparent contradiction qualifies as not evasive.

Quote:
3. Do I understand the implications of my position?? hahaha ... yes, I am fully clothed in public unless I am at Wreck Beach. Again, since you seem to be very unbending and unwilling to figure out my stance on this


The fact that I have to "figure it out" because you don't provide clear unambiguous answers is an indication that you recognize that contradiction I mentioned.

Quote:
3. As Warlock has stated, this is very trivial in comparison to some inequalities.


It seems a little cavalier to dismiss an equal rights issue as trivial. If society can force you to do something or not do something based on your gender with so little justification, religion wins over reason. When religion wins, women generally lose.

Quote:
4. As Elit stated in another thread - which sounds like your behaviour in this thread: ... twisting words and doing what [they] can to make it a scandal.


I haven't twisted words. I have had to guess at your meanings because you have refused to answer questions clearly and unambiguously. So, what "sounds like" my behavior is guess on your part and it results from a result of your behavior.

Quote:
have a great day, kids!!


You've ended almost all of your posts dismissively when simple answers to questions would have clarified the issue. I understand that there are people in this world who have a great deal of difficulty admitting they said something kinda stupid. It seems that you're one of them and it really is a simple thing to fix. Admit it, recover from it, learn from it. What you don't want to see and what you don't want to be illegal can be two different things. How you would disallow toplessness in public for women is potentially worrisome.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
VanGogh
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:01:57 PM

Rank: Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado

Joined: 2/10/2012
Posts: 2,752
Location: Vancouver, Canada
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
Depends on the time and place. I have no issue with women breastfeeding in public. And I don't see what the big deal is, I've never seen a full breast or a nipple when a woman was feeding in public. As far as being topless, come on. Accept it. Women have boobs, men don't (technically). So yes it sucks that we have to keep them under wraps, but it's kind of inappropriate unless it's in the right setting. And I for one don't want everyone seeing my breasts anyways.

But if public nudity is going to be allowed, it shouldn't be based on body types. I would just find it highly inappropriate to stroll into a cafe and see anyone topless, regardless of gender. There's a time and place for everything. And just because it's overlooked, it doesn't mean it's right.

And if women went around topless, it'd open up a whole other can of worms. Females complain when men ogle their breasts through their shirts, so just think of the allegations that would arise if we were topless and just let those babies flop all over the place.

Again, as long as it's in the appropriate setting (beaches, swimming pools, etc.), I don't mind women being topless in public. But I also hold the same opinion for men being shirtless in public.


thanks for amending your statement .... I concur!! (careful though, some may disagree with you and you might become the next target)

For the Anal Lovers .... come enjoy my RR honoured An Alluring Ass

Another Sex in the Office Poem (I know you love those!!) In Your Office

* * * * * *
"The supreme accomplishment is to blur the line between work and play." - Arnold J. Toynbee
“Everything you can imagine is real.” - Pablo Picasso
Dani
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:09:24 PM

Rank: Penguin Wrangler

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 3,994
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
PersonalAssistant wrote:


thanks for amending your statement .... I concur!! (careful though, some may disagree with you and you might become the next target)


Thanks, but oddly enough these things never happen to me. So either I make my views clear enough, or people just don't care that much about what I have to say. Most likely it's the latter.dontknow



We're tiny. We're toony. We're all a little looney. And in this cartoony, we're invading your TV.

1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:13:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Warlock wrote:
I'm not sure what validation would be acceptable to you.. there is no right ensuring that anyone can do anything they want.. you say you have a right as a man to go topless.. not in my living room you don't.. that's where your right ends and mine begin..


This could get deeply philosophical, but here goes. A man alone in nature has a right to all things, because he has a right to life and "all things" is the realm where he finds the things he uses for survival. When you introduce another person, he has a right to all things which the other doesn't have a prior valid claim on. The other has a right to anything he has a prior valid claim on. You can set a dress code for your house, because it is yours and you have a prior valid claim. But in order to have a right to tell a woman she must not go topless in public, you have to cite a valid right to something that would be violated by her toplessness. What is that?

Quote:
we all know that is a nonsense argument brought out every time someone wants to trumpet a proposal that might not be universally accepted..


Silly me. I thought we all knew that reason trumps what we all know, because people will routinely use reason to determine what overly controlling laws to violate and when. Remember the lesson from Prohibition? We also know that other societies will become more competitive if we stupidly restrict harmless behavior.

Quote:
we all pay a price to live and survive in a civilized society..


And we pay a bigger price when we enforce laws that have no business being laws. And we pay a price having such laws on the books even when we don't enforce them, because people feel oppressed by the possibility of enforcement and where people feel oppressed, they invest less.

Quote:
some will pay more than others.. and it is naive to act surprised by that..


What is the relevance of that?



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:29:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
Thanks, but oddly enough these things never happen to me. So either I make my views clear enough, or people just don't care that much about what I have to say. Most likely it's the latter.dontknow


I'm happy to ask you the same questions I've asked others. Let's cut right to the heart of the issue. Do you support the current double standard and believe that it should remain illegal for women to be topless in the places in the US where men are free to go shirtless but women must keep their "babies" covered at the risk of an indecent exposure conviction? ;)


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
elitfromnorth
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:35:44 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,588
Location: Burrowed, Norway
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


Thanks, but oddly enough these things never happen to me. So either I make my views clear enough, or people just don't care that much about what I have to say. Most likely it's the latter.dontknow


I'm gonna disagree with you and say it's most likely the former.

And people who try to victimise themselves when they're not a "victim" just looks plain stupid, kinda like girls who wear push up bras with massive cleavage and complain about men staring at their boobs. I'm also not participating in a witch hunt because I just ran out of torches and my pitchfork broke crybaby

And Warlock, the whole thing about a man being topless in your living room is pushing it, considering it states that we're talking in public. After all, once it's in your private property you could force people to wear burkas or have dudes wear skimpy thongs. Same way restaurants can send people away if they're not satisfied with what they wear.

So why should we allow this inequality where men can sit in a cafe shirtless but women can't? I can't see a good reason behind it.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
VinceisBi
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:38:43 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/24/2012
Posts: 35
Location: Gj, United States
Oh fuck yeah
Dani
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 2:45:08 PM

Rank: Penguin Wrangler

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 3,994
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
1ball wrote:


I'm happy to ask you the same questions I've asked others. Let's cut right to the heart of the issue. Do you support the current double standard and believe that it should remain illegal for women to be topless in the places in the US where men are free to go shirtless but women must keep their "babies" covered at the risk of an indecent exposure conviction? ;)


No I don't...and I also think that it's inappropriate for either gender to be topless in certain places. So if anything, I'd prefer for it to just stop altogether. As stated in my original post, if I stroll into a cafe or another similar public place and found a topless member of either sex, I'd find it inappropriate. There's a time and place for everything. And in the case of men, it is a double standard just because they don't have breasts...at least not in the literal sense that women do. But outside of certain places/situations, I really don't want see any topless individual, regardless of their body type or their gender.



We're tiny. We're toony. We're all a little looney. And in this cartoony, we're invading your TV.

Warlock
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 3:01:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2012
Posts: 198
Location: Where I need to be right now, United States
Warlock wrote:
I'm not sure what validation would be acceptable to you.. there is no right ensuring that anyone can do anything they want.. you say you have a right as a man to go topless.. not in my living room you don't.. that's where your right ends and mine begin..


This could get deeply philosophical, but here goes. A man alone in nature has a right to all things, because he has a right to life and "all things" is the realm where he finds the things he uses for survival. When you introduce another person, he has a right to all things which the other doesn't have a prior valid claim on. The other has a right to anything he has a prior valid claim on. You can set a dress code for your house, because it is yours and you have a prior valid claim. But in order to have a right to tell a woman she must not go topless in public, you have to cite a valid right to something that would be violated by her toplessness. What is that?

***
A man alone in nature? All things perfect? Utopia? That isn't philosophical it's a pipe dream.. we have to live in the real world with real world issues.. it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world.. do you really believe that by relying on the character and nature of those you want to give unrestricted rights to it will improve rather than deteriorate? I've already stated that I believe men and women are created equal and by default are deserving of equal rights.. going topless may be one of those if so chosen.. but I also said along with those rights comes a responsibility to guard against abuse.. and in every case known there are extremists who will foul the pool for others.. I don't dispute your premise.. just your imbalance of enthusiasm..

Quote:
we all know that is a nonsense argument brought out every time someone wants to trumpet a proposal that might not be universally accepted..

Silly me. I thought we all knew that reason trumps what we all know, because people will routinely use reason to determine what overly controlling laws to violate and when. Remember the lesson from Prohibition? We also know that other societies will become more competitive if we stupidly restrict harmless behavior.

***
Prohibition wasn't about anyone's rights.. it was about money.. governments move towards taxation.. and the ill-gotten gains to avoid those taxes.. read your history.. on the other hand.. the words "government control" is one of those buzz connotations that incite emotional discomfort in most educated people.. so using them is often suspect..

Quote:
we all pay a price to live and survive in a civilized society..

And we pay a bigger price when we enforce laws that have no business being laws. And we pay a price having such laws on the books even when we don't enforce them, because people feel oppressed by the possibility of enforcement and where people feel oppressed, they invest less.

***
We all agree that there are ridiculous laws set in place by our government with little review or say by the people.. and even more ridiculous standards that society sets in place depending upon who is a majority of self-serving self-righteous flag bearers in a community.. but once again.. we aren't men alone in nature as you cited..

Quote:
some will pay more than others.. and it is naive to act surprised by that..

What is the relevance of that?

***
It is relevant only from the standpoint of realizing that in order to make a change.. you have to see how things really are.. and not how you want them to be..
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 3:06:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
1ball wrote: I'm happy to ask you the same questions I've asked others. Let's cut right to the heart of the issue. Do you support the current double standard and believe that it should remain illegal for women to be topless in the places in the US where men are free to go shirtless but women must keep their "babies" covered at the risk of an indecent exposure conviction? ;)

slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
No I don't.


Great. That's very clear.

Quote:
..and I also think that it's inappropriate for either gender to be topless in certain places. So if anything, I'd prefer for it to just stop altogether. As stated in my original post, if I stroll into a cafe or another similar public place and found a topless member of either sex, I'd find it inappropriate. There's a time and place for everything. And in the case of men, it is a double standard just because they don't have breasts...at least not in the literal sense that women do. But outside of certain places/situations, I really don't want see any topless individual, regardless of their body type or their gender.


Okay, now we can get into whether you have a right that trumps the right of an individual to wear what they want above the waist and below the chin. Let's call that the shirt region. When you talk about a cafe, that's usually a private business, but the OP's question states "in public". I think we have to assume that means places like walking down the street, driving on public roads, in public parks, and within eyesight of any of those places. What body parts in the shirt region do you believe you have a right to control somebody else's exposure of when they are in public? What right do you cite as the source of that right?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Dani
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 3:28:31 PM

Rank: Penguin Wrangler

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 3,994
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
1ball wrote:
Okay, now we can get into whether you have a right that trumps the right of an individual to wear what they want above the waist and below the chin. Let's call that the shirt region. When you talk about a cafe, that's usually a private business, but the OP's question states "in public". I think we have to assume that means places like walking down the street, driving on public roads, in public parks, and within eyesight of any of those places. What body parts in the shirt region do you believe you have a right to control somebody else's exposure of when they are in public? What right do you cite as the source of that right?


Again, time and place for everything. For me, it's not so much about rights as it is propriety. In most of the situations you've mentioned above, it's just not something I personally find appropriate, again, regardless of body type. Is there a basis for a law other than it's something I find inappropriate? Probably not. But then it opens a whole other can of worms. Like now, it's illegal to "expose yourself". So then what would be the boundaries? If I bend over and my crack peeps out of my jeans, am I exposing myself? Or if I lean over and I'm not wearing a bra and my breasts spill out, am I exposing myself? It's a very gray area. But I digress.

Now, in keeping my response relevant to the OP while answering your question, I believe the law that's currently in place that keeps women from being topless in public is referred to as "Indecent Exposure" or something along those lines. I believe it should stay in place, and the only thing I would change is that it should be extended to men. I'm sure it already is in some states, but is overlooked, I'm sure, because men don't have breasts (technically).



We're tiny. We're toony. We're all a little looney. And in this cartoony, we're invading your TV.

1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 3:50:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
I asked: in order to have a right to tell a woman she must not go topless in public, you have to cite a valid right to something that would be violated by her toplessness. What is that?

Warlock wrote:
<No relevant answer>


This is what I expected. Nobody has a valid prior claim to a right to not see boobs. :D

Quote:
do you really believe that by relying on the character and nature of those you want to give unrestricted rights to it will improve rather than deteriorate?


You're making a lot of insupportable assumptions there. Rights are restricted by the rights of others. You've failed to cite a right that trumps the freedom to choose what to wear above the waist and below the chin.

Quote:
I don't dispute your premise.. just your imbalance of enthusiasm..


And still you produce no valid right to trump freedom of choice. What wouldn't you regulate on the basis of " along with those rights comes a responsibility to guard against abuse.. and in every case known there are extremists who will foul the pool for others.."? Governments are great at using the excuse of "because someone might do something bad" as a reason for everything from taking guns away to requiring women to dress like black moving objects. In the absence of requiring a government to have a very good reason, something other than "because we can get away with it" or "because we've always done it this way" or "because we think it's necessary for the maintenance of order", we know that government will overcontrol and produce a less competitive society. How many times do we have to rerun that experiment?

Quote:
the words "government control" is one of those buzz connotations that incite emotional discomfort in most educated people.. so using them is often suspect..


Relevance?

Quote:
we aren't men alone in nature as you cited..


I'm pretty sure I didn't cite that we are men alone in nature. The man alone in nature is the starting place of understanding rights and the limits we can place on them. If governments cavalierly ignore the fact that people believe they have the right to certain freedoms, those societies will suffer and transfer competitive advantage to other societies. Many of those freedoms were specified in our Constitution but many are practiced regardless of laws. Our Constitution allowed states to distinguish themselves and thus compete among each other for us; producers, consumers, investors, taxpayers, residents, etc. Each state has a different level of respect for the individual, mostly above what all are required to have by the Constitution. Many state laws have been overturned by a Constitutional "takings" challenge. Many other state laws have been defeated by other legal means. Many state laws are not enforced because they are not worth enforcing. In all cases, rights that people believe they have, simply because asserting them does not harm others by double standard, have limited the use of government against the individual. That is not "men alone in nature". That is simply people using their ability to ignore or circumvent the state government as a threat to force limits on the state government.

Quote:
It is relevant only from the standpoint of realizing that in order to make a change.. you have to see how things really are.. and not how you want them to be..


It seems that you are presuming that I want to make a change. I want to see the end of double standards and wasteful enforcement, but I'm content to just talk about the desirability of those and vote against collectivism as effectively as I can.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 4:13:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
Now, in keeping my response relevant to the OP while answering your question, I believe the law that's currently in place that keeps women from being topless in public is referred to as "Indecent Exposure" or something along those lines. I believe it should stay in place, and the only thing I would change is that it should be extended to men. I'm sure it already is in some states, but is overlooked, I'm sure, because men don't have breasts (technically).


You went from providing a clear and direct answer to getting all squishy about it. Some people would think it is inappropriate for a woman to wear a bikini top while sitting in her front yard and within sight of a public road. Others would say only the nipple and areola needs to be covered. Others would say let it all hang out. Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. The right to "decency" is so packed with religious dogma that it violates separation of church and state almost every time.

So basically you're assuming a right to "decency", whatever that is, and saying don't change the status quo. But there's no right to the status quo. I never thought I would see butt floss bikinis on the beaches of SoCal, but that happened. Then I saw them on the streets near the beach. Then in front yards and apartment balconies. At one time, all of those would have meant indecent exposure tickets. I'm not sure the law changed, but the enforcement standards did during the time I lived there. Time marches on.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Dani
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 4:31:24 PM

Rank: Penguin Wrangler

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 3,994
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
1ball wrote:


You went from providing a clear and direct answer to getting all squishy about it. Some people would think it is inappropriate for a woman to wear a bikini top while sitting in her front yard and within sight of a public road. Others would say only the nipple and areola needs to be covered. Others would say let it all hang out. Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. The right to "decency" is so packed with religious dogma that it violates separation of church and state almost every time.

So basically you're assuming a right to "decency", whatever that is, and saying don't change the status quo. But there's no right to the status quo. I never thought I would see butt floss bikinis on the beaches of SoCal, but that happened. Then I saw them on the streets near the beach. Then in front yards and apartment balconies. At one time, all of those would have meant indecent exposure tickets. I'm not sure the law changed, but the enforcement standards did during the time I lived there. Time marches on.


Well as squishy as it may seem, you asked a question and I provided an answer. If it disappoints you, there's not much I can do about that. And if we're headed towards a topless society, it's definitely not something I'm looking forward to. I hate repeating myself, so I won't reiterate my previous points in regards to how I feel about people being topless in public.

However, as far as it being against the law for women to be topless in public while men seem to get away with it for the most part (I think this is the crux of what this thread is about), I disagree with this as far as the double standard goes. I think if men are going to be allowed to be shirtless, then women should also be allowed and to the same extent.

But the overall idea of being shirtless is something I don't agree with. You can argue my definition of decency and propriety and how society's definitions of those things have evolved, and that's fine. But I stand by my opinion. Again, there's really no ground for a law other than the ones already in place, I suppose. But the overall topless in public thing is just something I don't particularly agree with.



We're tiny. We're toony. We're all a little looney. And in this cartoony, we're invading your TV.

1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 4:57:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:


Well as squishy as it may seem, you asked a question and I provided an answer. If it disappoints you, there's not much I can do about that. And if we're headed towards a topless society, it's definitely not something I'm looking forward to. I hate repeating myself, so I won't reiterate my previous points in regards to how I feel about people being topless in public.

However, as far as it being against the law for women to be topless in public while men seem to get away with it for the most part (I think this is the crux of what this thread is about), I disagree with this as far as the double standard goes. I think if men are going to be allowed to be shirtless, then women should also be allowed and to the same extent.

But the overall idea of being shirtless is something I don't agree with. You can argue my definition of decency and propriety and how society's definitions of those things have evolved, and that's fine. But I stand by my opinion. Again, there's really no ground for a law other than the ones already in place, I suppose. But the overall topless in public thing is just something I don't particularly agree with.


That's all fair enough. It isn't that I'm disappointed. I'm just being honest about the nature of the use of government. A lot of our standards of "appropriate" were set by religions. They get laughed at as foolish in other parts of the world where they have their own standards of "appropriate" that were set by their religions (and which we laugh at). As long as we recognize that that is all that's behind these double standards and restrictions, we'll move away from the type of societies where people use governments to impose their religious views on each other and toward societies where individuals are free to choose and will usually choose moderation. The range of behavior known as moderate will change over time, but without religion at the helm of government people will probably choose comfort and style over conformity to standards set in past centuries.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 6:49:03 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,082
Yes they should if guys can women should be able to too....what good for the goose is also good for the gander....
Warlock
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:31:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2012
Posts: 198
Location: Where I need to be right now, United States
My apologies to FantasyFiction and others for seemingly hijacking this discussion by jousting with 1Ball.. I shall endeavor to keep my final response short and to the point..

I have never said at any point that I wish to deny the rights of women to go topless.. in fact if you read my responses again you'll find that I have supported equal rights in that regard.. while you continue to trumpet the bare-breast movement as an individual right, I think most people see it as a high school keg party Hustler magazine fantasy.. boobies.. yawn!! as for reasons to consider not going topless as a practice I would think line of employment such as heavy machinery.. jobs that require focus or attention.. or parent/teacher meetings at your child's school.. further you keep citing the Constitution and governmental excess as a valid marker in your argument regarding rights.. I believe I have answered and defused all of your arguments earlier.. In closing I will say one last time.. women should be entitled to every right a man has and some in addition due to their gender.. if going topless is a big issue for any Lush women I am happy to cast my vote on their behalf.. I also offer my services as a lactation coach and sunscreen applicator..
Guest
Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:51:00 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,082
There are a lot of places where I see topless guys and I go "ugh, put a shirt on" always in my head though, because I'm always polite.

I think in certain places, people should keep all their clothes on, but in certain places, if its perfectly acceptable for a man to take off his shirt, a woman should be able to do it too.

E.g. if a guy can mow the lawn shirtless, it should be ok for a woman to do it too.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.