The Boobs are Free Poll

[Saint Frankenstein]

My error. I thought you were gay.

.

No. My lust does not discriminate, although I do tend to prefer women.

 

[ClearPath]

It depends how "sexual assault" is defined. Staring and looks? Possibly. But actual assault? I doubt it. Because people like that will assault regardless of what their victim is wearing.


Has bestiality become legal since gay marriage has? It's much the same argument. I seriously seriously doubt that exposing one's genitals is going to be made legal. There's already no law against "going commando", so long as you've got pants on. But even men are slapped with public indecency and put on lists when they flash their Southern Bits at other people.

I seriously doubt this would be passed as a law; I was merely making a point at where does it stop?
Assault can be verbal too - this opens up discrimination

 

[Quintessence]

Can't really characterize my response to it with the way the poll was set up.

Did an obviously discriminatory law need to be removed from the books? Yes, absolutely. It is not okay to fine only certain kinds of people (human females) up to $2,650 or imprison them for 180 days when the exact same behavior done by other kinds of people (human males) does not carry this penalty. They either needed to get rid of the penalty for both sexes, or impose it on all sexes - male, female, transsexual, and intersex.

Was it wise to go with removing the penalty for all sexes rather than imposing it for all sexes? Depends on your values. But one would have to be rather naive to not see the problems that removing the penalty may have in a culture that is still strongly puritanical and struggling with sexism. It is a move that is probably ahead of its time, and carries the risk of backfiring. That said, Denver is, as I recall, a fairly liberal/hippy area. I don't wager anything drastic will come out of this there. Were this to happen in another part of the country, however...

Also, ew. Just... ew.

 

[Skwim]

Where I live it has been legal for women to go topless for years now (at least a decade, too lazy to actually look it up). But there really is no change in attitude or behaviour. Women generally don't go around topless in public.

Care to disclose your location? I'm curious about such a forward thinking community.

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Where I live it has been legal for women to go topless for years now (at least a decade, too lazy to actually look it up). But there really is no change in attitude or behaviour. Women generally don't go around topless in public.

Same with where I live.

 

[Skwim]

Can't really characterize my response to it with the way the poll was set up.

To that point, I do regret not changing the second option from "Okay" to "Good," although I know from reading the rest of your post here this wouldn't have helped you out.

Was it wise to go with removing the penalty for all sexes rather than imposing it for all sexes? Depends on your values. But one would have to be rather naive to not see the problems that removing the penalty may have in a culture that is still strongly puritanical and struggling with sexism.

I'm naive. What are the problems you foresee that may occur?

It is a move that is probably ahead of its time, and carries the risk of backfiring. That said, Denver is, as I recall, a fairly liberal/hippy area. I don't wager anything drastic will come out of this there. Were this to happen in another part of the country, however...

Also, ew. Just... ew.

Not a breast man, huh. That's okay, but "ew"? Are bare breasts really that repugnant?

.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Assault can be verbal too

Yes it can. However assault is defined as harmful action or intent. The operative word there being "harmful". So statements like "Damn!" or even - piggish though it may be - "nice rack" aren't strictly assault. They're just rude and uncalled for.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm naive. What are the problems you foresee that may occur?

I'd wager you're not naive to the point that you are oblivious to the occurrence of sexual harassment and how exposure of secondary sex organs would facilitate that in a culture that still widely regards female glands as sex objects.

Not to mention that if you don't have tiny glands, going around without a bra isn't exactly comfortable.

Are bare breasts really that repugnant?.

Well, they're basically sacs of fat with glands in them. Yeah, not on my "that's sexy" list.

 

[columbus]

Also, ew. Just... ew.

How much commenting on this can I post without it being a Rule #4 infraction.
You know how much I try to avoid infractions.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

I'd wager you're not naive to the point that you are oblivious to the occurrence of sexual harassment and how exposure of secondary sex organs would facilitate that in a culture that still widely regards female glands as sex objects.

Do you think such potential harassment should negate the reasoning of the ruling, and the order not have been issued?

The order can viewed HERE It starts about a third of the way down from the top of the page.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you think such potential harassment should negate the reasoning of the ruling, and the order not have been issued?

I already covered that in the first response, which are more nuanced than a simple "yes-no" answer.

 

[ClearPath]

Yes it can. However assault is defined as harmful action or intent. The operative word there being "harmful". So statements like "Damn!" or even - piggish though it may be - "nice rack" aren't strictly assault. They're just rude and uncalled for.

To us they may be harmful, however you don't know what others think of their own bodies - they may take it as an attack.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

To us they may be harmful, however you don't know what others think of their own bodies - they may take it as an attack.

Someone could take "Hey man, what's up?" as an attack. But someone being overly-sensitive to language doesn't make for assault. Saying "I'll ****ing kill you!" is verbal assault; it gives clear intention of bodily harm. Crudely expressing attraction and complimenting a body feature, not so much.

 

[fantome profane]

Care to disclose your location? I'm curious about such a forward thinking community.

.

Ontario. But as I say, if you come up here expecting to see hoards of topless women walking the streets, you will be disappointed.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think many, if any, women will act on this new law. Perhaps a few feminists or equality nuts or more benignly a nudist, but the average woman isn't going to walk down the street topless.

Quite so. There are many places where it's perfectly legal to walk around topless -- New York City, for example -- but you don't actually see many topless women on the streets.

As much as I like it, it think it's a poor ruling for society; Soon America will be featured in National Geographic.

LOL! -- America already appears regularly in National Geographic, and how would toplessness be harmful to society, anyway?
I suspect you're afflicted with conventionalism. Seek therapy, before you end up a Republican.

I think this ruling is promoting temptation of both parts; I think sexual assaults may rise - frankly this would no longer leave the imagination to roll - how long before underwear is ruled to be OK to remove in public?

You conservative conventionalists have been predicting the same thing forever.
Take this shameless trollop, for example. Can total societal collapse and moral anarchy be far behind?
Luckily her indecency was arrested before any children saw....

 

[Kemosloby]

I guess if boobs are non sexualized, instead of giving a girl a pat on the back..you could just give them a squeeze?

 

[ClearPath]

Quite so. There are many places where it's perfectly legal to walk around topless -- New York City, for example -- but you don't actually see many topless women on the streets.
LOL! -- America already appears regularly in National Geographic, and how would toplessness be harmful to society, anyway?
I suspect you're afflicted with conventionalism. Seek therapy, before you end up a Republican.
You conservative conventionalists have been predicting the same thing forever.
Take this shameless trollop, for example. Can total societal collapse and moral anarchy be far behind?
Luckily her indecency was arrested before any children saw....

There is one thing showing a little breast and another showing full breast. The above image is a little extreme.

 

[ClearPath]

Someone could take "Hey man, what's up?" as an attack. But someone being overly-sensitive to language doesn't make for assault. Saying "I'll ****ing kill you!" is verbal assault; it gives clear intention of bodily harm. Crudely expressing attraction and complimenting a body feature, not so much.

It comes down to the person at the end of the day. People get very offended nowadays; if you clap at someone in my country, the police can record this as harassment.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I wasn't aware the UK was so strict on keeping to oneself. But here in America it doesn't really come down to the person. I could claim to be offended by a number of harmless things, and even make damn good cases for that offense. But if they're harmless then there's really nothing to be done for it. I can be offended, but I can't prosecute.

 

[columbus]

But if they're harmless then there's really nothing to be done for it. I can be offended, but I can't prosecute.

You can litigate though. Somebody sued a baker for not wanting to do a cake exactly as they wanted it done.
I think that they got a $175,000 judgment.
Tom