Boobs are Free!

[CogentPhilosopher]

Nope. A court that tells same sex people that they can be married obviously has no trouble telling women to parade around showing their breasts in public. I'm sure that animal rights activists will soon be told that they can marry animals by this travesty of a court.

False equivalency, non-human animals cannot consent to marriage.

False equivalence.

A man of any color can procreate with a woman of any color.

So it's only about procreation?

If that's the case then I suppose I have no business being because I do not plan to have any biolgical children.

 

[Skwim]

Where does the motivation for a woman to flaunt her breasts around come from anyway?

Why do you consider going topless to be flaunting? For all you know such a woman may not give a wet whistle what others think. On the other hand, a woman may do it for reasons that do have a connection to others: it may be a sexual turn on, plain old exhibitionism, teasing, and even promotion (prostitution).

.


.Sexual turn on. Exhibitionism. Tease. Advertising (prostitution)

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm sure that animal rights activists will soon be told that they can marry animals by this travesty of a court.

And there's the slippery-slope to bestiality! I knew it was just a matter of time.

 

[Akivah]

False equivalency, non-human animals cannot consent to marriage.

For now. Just wait until an animal activist brings a case to the Stupid Court, showing that animals can think and consent.

 

[columbus]

False equivalency, non-human animals cannot consent to marriage.

So it's only about procreation?

If that's the case then I suppose I have no business being because I do not plan to have any biolgical children.

I rated this rainbow because it is sooooo gay.

Tom

 

[Skwim]

If any of you have ever been to some of the beaches in the Caribbean, Europe, and even Israel, bare breasts are not only common, they tend to become passe after a while-- especially when you're my age. Don't get me wrong, a beautiful woman is a sight to behold, imo, but isn't it the same with seeing a handsome man if you're a women or gay man?

Seems to me that we have much more serious things that the politicians and courts need to work on.

And I think equal rights is a serious thing.

.

 

[Skwim]

But aren't they sexy mostly because they're hidden? A century ago exposed women's legs were considered shocking and controversial. Today they're not. If breast exposure became normalized, perhaps they'd cease to shock, as well.

Which has been the case where bare breasts are acceptable.

Standards are like hemlines, they're constantly changing. Here in the US it's stricter now than it was a decade ago, or in the '70s.

I wouldn't say "stricter," implying some controlling entity, but just a change in fashion.

.

 

[Skwim]

I comes from a twisted belief that men and women are the same, and everything that one sex does, the other one should do. I suspect the court will next rule that men are forbidden to pee standing up, since it causes inequality with women.

And I believe this is one of your actual suspicions.

.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

For now. Just wait until an animal activist brings a case to the Stupid Court, showing that animals can think and consent.

If that happens I would oppose them.

I don't accept or reject something just because it's "progressive".

Also your making an argument from consequences. If we apply your logic to your position, then we should not van same-sex marriage because it might cause some people to try and use it as a stepping stone to banning interracial marriage.

 

[columbus]

For now. Just wait until an animal activist brings a case to the Stupid Court, showing that animals can think and consent.

I wouldn't care much if someone did. I would be more concerned about the mental health of the human.
Providing the human isn't physically hurting the animal, you can't harm them the way irresponsible sex causes so much harm to humans. Even when people both consent there can easily be harm caused, particularly to young people. That's why I am such a prude.
Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I am not saying that we need to outlaw exposure to breasts. What I am saying, however, is that people wear clothes for a reason, and for that reason clothing can be reasonably regulated. We wear clothes to help us all get along better, not just to protect us from the elements. So for example its not a good idea for co-ed high schools to have girls and boys go topless. They will get along better with shirts on and the boys will be more likely to think about their studies. Its easier, because boys are visually excited by breasts. Dress codes are a judgment call, but they are not unreasonable.

I wouldn't use US culture as the norm. How do you think the response to toplessness in the US might compare to that currently found where topless swimming and sunbathing are unremarkable?

 

[Skwim]

A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE LAW

​

The order in question was made at the Federal District level by a federal judge. How far does this order extend? Is it only enforceable within that district or does it cover the whole USA?

Not looking for opinions, just facts.

Thank you.

.

.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wouldn't use US culture as the norm. How do you think the response to toplessness in the US might compare to that currently found where topless swimming and sunbathing are unremarkable?

In the US you would get a mixed response. Europeans show that they can understand the need for clothes, because despite having nude recreation they also have some fine clothing. Nude recreation is rare in the USA, and people rarely consider it. It is unthinkable to some. I would consider it, but I'd never go through with it. I'd feel naked.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the US you would get a mixed response. Europeans show that they can understand the need for clothes, because despite having nude recreation they also have some fine clothing.

Seriously?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Seriously?

No but obviously.

 

[Valjean]

I'm going to disagree on the basis of an argument I heard here: Video on youtube with an evolutionary discussion about why women have large, inconvenient breasts that are a compromise between convenience, provision and sexiness.

So for example its not a good idea for co-ed high schools to have girls and boys go topless. They will get along better with shirts on and the boys will be more likely to think about their studies. Its easier, because boys are visually excited by breasts. Dress codes are a judgment call, but they are not unreasonable.

There is attractive, and there is sexually arousing. Sexualize a merely attractive feature with taboos or regulations and you turn it into a sexual display.
A century ago the short, leg-exposing skirts worn by today's schoolgirls would have 'visually excited' the boys. Today they don't. In tropical regions regions where women commonly went topless, schoolboys were no more distracted by their female schoolmates than they are in temperate countries.

For now. Just wait until an animal activist brings a case to the Stupid Court, showing that animals can think and consent.

And this would be a problem why?
I suspect you're just novelty-averse; you're inordinately disturbed by the unconventional.

<<Standards are like hemlines, they're constantly changing. Here in the US it's stricter now than it was a decade ago, or in the '70s.>>
I wouldn't say "stricter," implying some controlling entity, but just a change in fashion.

I suspect it really is stricter, just now.
When I see a topless female toddler's chest pixellated, as I did on TV a couple months ago, I suspect some 'controlling entity is getting overeager.
From 2000 to 2003 the PBS arts show "Egg" showed full frontal nudity in prime time.
I remember "Roots," which aired in prime time in the '70s, showing topless women.
I remember seeing topless women on TV regularly as a small child back in the '50s.
The 20-teens are an unusually puritanical phase, IMHO.


.[/QUOTE]

A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE LAW

​

The order in question was made at the Federal District level by a federal judge. How far does this order extend? Is it only enforceable within that district or does it cover the whole USA?
Not looking for opinions, just facts.

Topless Laws

The green colored states are those where top freedom is in effect.
The orange colored ones have amibiguous state laws on the matter.
The red colored ones are the ones where the mere showing of the female breast in public is illegal according to state law.

As you can see, just because toplessness isn't prohibited doesn't mean you're likely to see women routinely walking around en deshabille.



.

.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That map is interesting to know...

 

[Brickjectivity]

A century ago the short, leg-exposing skirts worn by today's schoolgirls would have 'visually excited' the boys. Today they don't.

Yes they do! I'm a boy, and I can tell you they do.

In tropical regions regions where women commonly went topless, schoolboys were no more distracted by their female schoolmates than they are in temperate countries.

Maybe? I'm not sure I find this convincing.

There is attractive, and there is sexually arousing. Sexualize a merely attractive feature with taboos or regulations and you turn it into a sexual display.

Sexual arousal is part of the male visual process. Its easy to trigger resulting in an energetic decision process in males. You are suggesting that taboos generate this? All of it? That is difficult to believe. First, you'd have to explain why men are stimulated by porn rather than by grass and trees. Why are men not attracted to...stoves or clouds or darkness?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes they do! I'm a boy, and I can tell you they do.

ZZ Top even wrote a whole song about it.

Sexual arousal is part of the male visual process. Its easy to trigger resulting in an energetic decision process in males. You are suggesting that taboos generate this? All of it? That is difficult to believe.

Especially for men who, for instance, are still visually stimulated by their wives.

 

[Skwim]

I suspect it really is stricter, just now.

So just whom do you suspect of establishing this strictness? Because I only see the change as one of fashion and not that of some controlling entity.




.

Topless Laws

The green colored states are those where top freedom is in effect.
The orange colored ones have amibiguous state laws on the matter.
The red colored ones are the ones where the mere showing of the female breast in public is illegal according to state law.

As you can see, just because toplessness isn't prohibited doesn't mean you're likely to see women routinely walking around en deshabille..

Actually, the web page featuring this 2015 map says that the "green states indicate there is some degree of topless freedom.'" Which is why I suspect it can show Colorado green despite the fact that toplessness was outlawed in Fort Collins.
source

.