Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Free the nipple?

76 posts in this topic

We had an event the last two days reminded me of this subject,simply two girls from a feministe organisation took a pic in public nipples free kissing eachother then ran posted it later on their site defending the right of lesbiens  :) seems the nipples are useful for everything thesedays even for politics..not long time ago women used to wear long dresses even go to the beach in long swim dress covering all the body, with time they kept reducing parts till becomes almost nothing that we call today Bikini, now with freeing the nipples and get topless am wondering if soon we gonna hear free the bush and throw the panties away  :lol: what a time we are living in !! where we can look for excuses to get rid of our cloths and our values  :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the law itself goes, I don't really care one way or the other, but as far as women's breasts supposedly not being sexual objects go, well, I think there's plenty of evidence in literature, psychology, and our own personal observations to refute that. However, instead of going into detail trying to prove something I consider so obvious, I'll just leave one piece of evidence: 

 

(Warning: crude themes and language)

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be as legal for women as it is for men to have nipples out in public.

That said, I don't expect a large percentage of women will exercise the right to show nips, and there are some difference between male and female chests, but I think the option should be the same for both.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I can't believe we had a thread about breasts and it took me this long to respond. I'm ashamed of myself. lol

 

I support whatever Invincible has to say on the topic. Haha

 

Um...thanks? Good to know I at least have one fan. lol. You pretty much said what I would have. The thing I would add though regarding modesty is that I think Christian circles tend get too caught up in defining modesty purely in terms of clothing choice. The Bible talks about modesty in a variety of contexts such as materialism and the state of the heart but surprisingly very little on clothing. So yes, dressing modestly is important, but rather than taking a legalistic approach of approving every piece of clothing out there, real modesty comes from the heart. Because it's impossible to account for every scenario. Some people get turned on just by looking at eyes. lol. It's the desire to be modest in mind and spirit for the Lord that is reflected by the way you live the rest of your life. Once you have that, the rest of the responsibility falls to others. We are only responsible for our own actions. Also, modesty isn't just a women's issue, it's also a man's issue. We are all called to be modest before God.

 

Now back to the topic at hand: breasts. Great topic btw. lol. From a formal equality standpoint, I suppose it's hard to argue a woman shouldn't be legally allowed to go topless if a man can. Although if the goal is female empowerment, this is not the way to do it. Because whether we like it or not, female breasts are universally sexualized in the western world. Some schools of feminism believe, naively and erroneously I might add, that porn, FTN, legal prostitution etc empowers women because it lets them take ownership of their own sexual destiny. Yet they fail to take into account that in the sex and adult industry is a predominantly male market and women are the product. Allowing men to use the female body as a play thing, even if it a business transaction, will not help them see women as human beings with feelings, hopes and dreams. The feminist movement cannot hope to truly equality without men as allies.

 

And for the record, I'd rather not see anyone topless in public, male or female.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for the record, I'd rather not see anyone topless in public, male or female.

Why male?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be as legal for women as it is for men to have nipples out in public.

That said, I don't expect a large percentage of women will exercise the right to show nips, and there are some difference between male and female chests, but I think the option should be the same for both.

 

This got me thinking along a legalistic line: you may free the nipple but cover the breast..... reverse pasties anyone?  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard the women's nipples are more sensitive than men's. Is this true? If it is, I would understand that as a practical reason for a bra. I once had chaffed nipples. It was not fun.

 

As for the topic, I'm a guy but even I get embarrassed to take off my shirt in public due to a childhood mistake of putting a fresh oleander branch underneath my armpit (It didn't know what was until I got a burning sensation minutes later). It caused hives to break out from the right side of my chest, underneath my armpit, and on to my back. I had to sit out on PE for several weeks until it healed (so my sweat wouldn't hinder the healing of the hives). I unfortunately received a scar from that experience that looks I have a third nipple just above my right one (what's sad is that hair grows from the top of it now). Before you ask, I am not Francisco Scaramanga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This got me thinking along a legalistic line: you may free the nipple but cover the breast..... reverse pasties anyone?  ;)

 

Those exist. They're called open tip bras.  B)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those exist. They're called open tip bras.  B)

 

You learn something new everday! Darn inventions that are already invented....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this entirely a joke?

I am not against nudity but I din't support suggestive nudity. Nudity is beautiful, when everything is kept natural than 'hey, I don't wear this' attention seeking IMO. If a woman walks nude in front of me, I would not mind. But I think attention seeking is just so disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is actually a question I've always asked. The feminist in me just doesn't understand. I do think that anyone having nipples out at work or the supermarket isn't for the best but I don't see why men can walk around bared chested and women would get told to cover up...even worse be told they're asking for objectification or abuse.

Here are my reasons:

>Men and women can both lactate so although women's breasts are the only ones used for breast feeding, breasts are intrinsically the same for men and women.

>An overweight male could have a lot more fat deposits in his breast tissue which means he technically has breasts bigger than a smaller breasted women. Why then does he not have to cover up and wear a sports bra or bikini?

>I understand that not every women would want to bare her breasts, I'm inclined to say that is because we are told by society that it is wrong or sexual. There are however men who, having been giving the choice and told it's fine to show some nipples, would not show their chest because they don't feel comfortable. My point is that it should be a choice, like showing our legs or arms.

>I really don't see what is so sexual about women's breasts in the first place. On a slight tangent...it annoys me when men are *disgusted by fat on a woman's stomach (ect.) but loves big breasts. Someone needs a science lesson is they don't realise that they are the same thing. A woman with a flat chest is simply one with less fat, just like the woman with the flat stomach. Why guys don't get this I don't know. Squishy boobs and squishy stomachs are the same thing. They're just fat and they're just like what guys have. 

So yeah if you wanna let em hang out I say go for it

P.S. If it was socially acceptable then I don't see why I wouldn't do it at the pool or whatever but in my situation a bra is necessary for the safety of myself and others xD

 

*By disgusted I don't mean "not attracted to", I mean when men think that is something wrong, unnatural or horrid. I'm not speaking of preference rather of those who would call a woman disgusting for her larger stomach. It wasn't about a man's ideal body type and I am not criticizing anyone for being attracted to anything they want. I just wish men wouldn't bully and ridicule women for a fatty stomach when breast fat is so attractive. This is a difficult point to explain but I hope people see that I am not made at men who like flat stomachs and breasts, that was simply poor wording on my part. I didn't realize people would take "disgusted" to mean "unattractive"

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see what is so sexual about women's breasts in the first place. On a slight tangent...it annoys me when men are disgusted by fat on a woman's stomach (ect.) but loves big breasts. Someone needs a science lesson is they don't realise that they are the same thing. A woman with a flat chest is simply one with less fat, just like the woman with the flat stomach.

Welcome to implants. They are not the same; for example, women are disgusted by fat men but not fat (YKWIM).... Well, just saying. Males are just sexually aroused by boobs, that's all. I can say that it is both carbon compounds there and here; seems like women need to get science lessons too. It is related to Composition/Division fallacy. The ability of making makes sexually aroused is not found on belly; it is found in breasts.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

I really don't see what is so sexual about women's breasts in the first place. On a slight tangent...

I see, because I am a cis-straight-male.

As I think that people should have their right to be nude as it is their personal choice, IDGA* but I just wanted to point out why boobs are sexual.

And something to remember about feminism:

3x7i9fr.jpg

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slight tangent...it annoys me when men are disgusted by fat on a woman's stomach (ect.) but loves big breasts. Someone needs a science lesson is they don't realise that they are the same thing. A woman with a flat chest is simply one with less fat, just like the woman with the flat stomach. Why guys don't get this I don't know. Squishy boobs and squishy stomachs are the same thing. They're just fat and they're just like what guys have.

 

jQ31oTNRMHhgI_e.jpg

 

Simply put, men are wired to be attracted to breasts and fat around the hips to some degree. A lower waist-to-hip ratio and fat around the breasts/hips signals health and fertility. A fat stomach...not so much. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just the way we were designed.  Shoot, at least a fat stomach can be changed with proper diet and exercise. Women for the most part tend to be attracted to taller guys, but it's not like our height is something that we have any control over lol.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jQ31oTNRMHhgI_e.jpg

Simply put, men are wired to be attracted to breasts and fat around the hips to some degree. A lower waist-to-hip ratio and fat around the breasts/hips signals health and fertility. A fat stomach...not so much. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, it's just the way we were designed. Shoot, at least a fat stomach can be changed with proper diet and exercise. Women for the most part tend to be attracted to taller guys, but it's not like our height is something that we have any control over lol.

You just nailed it. Like a pro.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came across this on youtube and it reminded me of this discussion....

 

 

 

For females promoting a "free" female nipple and breasts, image your a mother of children (of varying ages and hormonal stages and gender). Would you walk around topless at home? Would you want your children exposed [for lack of a better word] to female breast nudity in public spaces? Do you entertain guests in your home topless? Same questions could be addressed to males in regard to their prospective wives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I don't think I'd be a fan of my girlfriend or my wife walking around topless in public. Her sharing her nudity with others is kind of an intimate thing that would be kept within the confines of our relationship. It would be kind of an intimacy line that would be crossed. I really don't know why any woman (unless they are an absolute exhibitionist who enjoys people looking at her nude) would go topless or be nude in public because there are cameras everywhere and guys who'd snap a photo and stick it on the internet forever. It's pretty much guaranteed you'll be photographed and your nude pics will be out on the web forever to be pulled up by anyone at anytime.

 

I'm not talking about the government law angle on this but on the personal angle that a woman who is interested in flashing the world isn't really the type I'd go for.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support things like slut walks and "free the nipple" for no other reason than that they offend repressive, authoritarian conservatives who want to police other people’s bodies and sexuality.

 

So where do you draw the line? That sort of reasoning could set you on a very slippery slope. Should women and men be free to expose any part of their body in any public area? What about people with public sex fetishes? Should we decriminalise public sex and obscene exposure? I wouldn't see it as policing people's bodies and sexuality. Outside the strictly public space THEY ARE (basically) FREE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT (except, depending on where you live, beastiality, necrophilia, incest, and certain practices of sadism not because of the sexual element but because of the physical harm element - the areas the "free the nipple" is campaigning no longer criminalise non-heterosexual sex which is a genuine example of policing other's bodies and sexuality). I see it as a matter of policing the public space. The policing of which results in a whole host of other non-sexualised regulations that I am sure you appreciate. In the extremes you either "oppress" the "free the nipple people" or you "oppress" the "cover the nipple people"; a middle ground is necessary.

 

 

Men who can’t look at women’s breasts without getting super aroused just need to jack off more or something.

 

:blink: I don't think it works that way. [On a side note, would you want your husband to have such a desexualised view of female breasts that he is not turned on by yours?] To me such an attitude also misses the extent of the problem of sexualisation in society. Increasingly there are regulations to limit the marketing of harmful products such as alcohol and tobacco. Now let me be perfectly clear: I am not equating the female breast with a harmful product. However, when considering the pervasiveness (and normativity) of pornography, sexualised marketing targeted at men (some of which could probably be classified as soft-core porn), and female nudity in mainstream film, for males in this environment struggling (quite reasonably) with issues of sexualisation and healthy sexual expression and desiring not to be exposed to triggers doing so can be incredibly hard. In some countries more than others. In Australia explicit nudity in advertising is largely absence. In comparison, I found a completely nude woman (though crotch not visible) plastered on a public transport train in Europe. It would be like having a recovering smoker blown smoke in their face when walking down the street, or being heckled to buy tobacco at every corner store. Now I get that someone else's addiction problem shouldn't restrict the freedom of others but I wanted to bring this point up to show the male perspective. Feminism tells us all the time of how women are the victims of female over sexualisation; they aren't the only ones. 

 

What I would like to see the nipple supporters doing is hunting down the use of sex in marketing which is a massive issue and a very important one in molding minds. Go after photoshopping, go after those stupid music videos (I don't mean in a legal way but in a public awareness way). Have more declared nudist areas - parks and beaches. Or even promote more mixed-gender nudist events in more private areas such as swimming pools, saunas etc. Or even just one gender. Close to where I live there is a spa/sauna complex that has a clothes free women's evening but no equivalent for men. They got rid of a nude mixed gender session because of some issues I don't have details. 

 

One of my fears is that in the current hypersexualised culture, if feminists were to achieve significant rights to exposure in public places what is going to stop the marketing sector from exploiting this, severely exploiting this and only adding to sexualisation? Do we want to give them license to the full female upper body to do with it what they've done with the female body to date? Afterall if exposure in the streets to anyone is ok why wouldn't exposure to anyone through a screen be ok? We'll probably be accosted with pornographic adds for new products, "is the colour of your areolas right?!" "here's a cream for stopping those breast wrinkles" "Makeup to hide your stretch marks!". Next thing, females who don't want to expose themselves will be as weird and sidelined as WTMers are in the current culture....

 

 

I’ve seen both my parents naked when I was younger because they didn’t go to great lengths to hide it. My mother sometimes used to walk across the house topless after showering and I never even thought anything of it and it never bothered me. It was just normal. Only as I got older did I learn that was slightly unusual. I also grew up in San Francisco where public nudity is just something you see sometimes and toplessness is common at gay pride parades. Probably as a consequence of that I don’t now have this deeply ingrained fear of nudity as being something inherently sexual and that’s an attitude I plan to pass onto my children. I think it’s healthy for prepubescent children to occasionally be exposed to nudity in a non-sexual context, especially if it’s their parents. It’s only when people are older that breasts become associated with anything sexual and problems could arise. And that’s why context is important.

 
I've seen my parents naked. We used to have a sauna in germany where we had nude family sessions ( :superwaiter: not as perverted as it sounds)...and afterwards rolling in the snow  :wub: . In another place, our bathroom included the shower, bath, sink, toilet, laundry, and storage area...which meant you had little privacy... As such I am quite familiar with nudity. But they were all within a certain context: getting ready to shower, just having showered and walking to the bedroom to get dressed, sitting in a sauna etc. What I was referring to in my questions was nudity outside of such context that more reflect the use of male upper body nudity. For instance, its a stinking hot day, to cool of dad takes his shirt of, so does mum (non-family members may, or may not be present). Dad's mowing the lawn without a shirt, so is mum. You're going for a dip in the river where others are present, dad is topless, so is mum.....
 
I don't have a problem with prepubescent children exposed to non-sexual nudity of their parents. Yet why do you specify prepubescent? Do you disagree with post-pubescents being exposed to parental nudity or should it then only be non-parental nudity? The issue with free the nipple will be exposure in public places which means exposure to any and all age groups. And judging from the current culture around the female body such license to exposure is only waiting to turn into sexualised exposure or as a fashion statement. How are you going to reasonably police non-sexual public exposure from sexual public exposure? 
 

 

Not many people would think it was appropriate to entertain guests in their house while wearing a bikini either yet you’re not calling for bikinis to be banned, are you?

 
If you don't think it's appropriate to entertain a guest (doesn't have to be a stranger) in your house topless, I find it hard to argue that it would be appropriate to expose yourself topless to a whole range of people in the streets. So now the nipple is only sexualised/inappropriate in the confines of your private residence? It misses the point of desexualising the nipple no matter what the context to the same extent of the male nipple. Or do you consider it inappropriate for a male to be topless when there are people over but for it to be appropriate if he were standing in the street?  
 
My position has no problem with finding it inappropriate to entertain a guest in bikini (unless hot day;water activities etc) whilst not banning bikinis outright. The same way I can see being topless in the supermarket as inappropriate but not calling for nudist beaches or clothes free saunas to be banned. As you said, context is important. The Western, everyday, public space context is not the appropriate context to be nude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breasts and nipples sure is a big deal. Covered or not, it is a big deal. It is big... Deal... Hmmm...

*straightface

*nosebleed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I think you basically just said it yourself here: slippery slope fallacy. 

 

Perhaps I should have left out the slippery slope allusion since it distracted from my point. If you are arguing that public female toplessness should be legal because doing otherwise is ‘policing other people’s bodies and sexuality’ that exact same argument can be used to legalise general public exposure of genitals or public sex (amongst other things). Do you support public genital nudity and public sex?

 

Comparatively, if you were to argue that public female toplessness should be as legal as public male toplessness on the basis of (formal) equality, such a rationale cannot be used to endorse the legality of genital exposure or public sex. 

 

That’s not how freedom works. You’re not entitled to have society bend over backwards to avoid offending you. If you see something in a public space that offends you, that’s not you being “oppressed†because you have every right to go somewhere else or just avert your eyes or something. I see female toplessness as being like any other form of freedom of expression such as freedom of speech. Not to be harsh, but you honestly sound like one of those whiny liberals trying to ban “hate speech†by claiming that other people being allowed to express opinions they disagree with and are offended by is somehow a from of oppression. Um, no. It’s not. Other people’s freedoms don’t just get to be compromised where your feelings and delicate sensibilities begin. 

 

Perhaps in a very idealistic sense. Are you pursuing the concept that everyone should be absolutely free to do whatever they want in the public space as long as it does not violate other’s property or physical person? And that anything that is done that does not violate someone’s property or physical person cannot be described as “oppressive�

 

Female toplessness being like freedom of speech. You do realise freedom of speech is generally regulated? It is not an absolute freedom. Permits can be required by law for street preaching to busking to begging. Certainly, this reality doesn’t define what “freedom†is or should be but it indicates the non-absoluteness of our current “freedomsâ€. I’m guessing you don’t support the legalisation of genuine “hate speechâ€â€¦.

 

Certainly, I am not entitled to force society to do anything. I am however, in line with democratic principles, entitled to promote my point of view in politics. Wouldn't you agree that to a certain extent, in a democratic country, where one could say that public spaces are the common property of all citizens they should have an equal say in how those spaces should be enjoyed and made available to all?

 

I also have to say it strikes me as more than a little bit odd that guys who claim to have “mastered themselves†and have enough sexual restraint to wait until marriage act like they’re helpless against the wiles of women and need to be protected by the state from sights that might stimulate impure thoughts.

 

Well that’s just a little patronising. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to have ‘mastered myself’ [t’would be awesome!] nor have I made any suggestion of helpless. I would also consider it quite selfish of me to evaluate issues like these only from my non-mainstream lifestyle. 

 

If you see something in a public space that offends you, that’s not you being “oppressed†because you have every right to go somewhere else or just avert your eyes or something.

.....

If by "everyday public space" you mean places where men are allowed to go shirtless and women can wear bikinis and by "nude" you mean topless, then I disagree.

 

Okay, so here different living contexts come into play. In Taiwan, male public toplessness may not be appropriate anywhere else but the beach and the swimming pool. I don’t really know. But I think it’s safe to assume that male toplessness is far more pervasive in Australia than Taiwan; not only in regard to legality [which is the matter of concern amongst free the nipple campaigners] but also in cultural acceptance. It wouldn’t be a matter of simply going somewhere else as it could be everywhere except maybe for restaurants and clubs though I imagine their shirtless policies would become increasingly lax as you head into the northern regions of Australia. Temperatures would also pragmatically affect the everyday extent of bare flesh. Taiwan’s average temperature is 22C; Australia’s is 30C. Hence I imagine, Taiwan vs Australia adopting a female public toplessness right would have a very different effect. 

 

So to clarify, in which contexts do you consider it (should be) legal for a male to be shirtless? And thus a female to be topless?

 
In regard to averting eyes, are you expecting all age groups to be capable of this? I'd also like to point out that averting the eyes is a post-act remedy; as said on the internet: what has been seen cannot be unseen.
 

Everything I’ve read online suggests that when men with normal sex drives force themselves not to masturbation for long periods they become extremely horny all the time and it takes very little to turn them on. Sexual release temporarily makes your sex drive go down. I'm not a guy but I know that tends to be the case for me. I think the fact that most of the guys objecting to this are forbidden to masturbate by their religion so they’re ultra-horny all the time and constantly struggling not to commit the sin of “self abuse†might actually explain a lot of the hysteria surrounding it. But still no. You’re free to practice your religion but it’s not everyone else’s responsibility to help you cope with the psychological effects of the weird, unnatural things you do to your body because of your religion.

 

You would have to pay careful attention to a number of variables to give any legitimacy to such a test and such a conclusion. I’m not sure what you’ve been reading online but my knowledge – both personal and secondary, disagrees. I recommend you read up on what some call the chaser effect of masturbation.  

 

I think you give the tiny minority of non-masturbators too much credit if you think they control public opinion on female toplessness. Not masturbating as weird and unnatural…I’ll just leave that alone since it’ll derail the thread. 

 

The reason marketers use sex is because sex sells, people like it, they don’t see it as bad or harmful, and no amount of campaigning by sex-negative feminists and Christians who found a rare point of common ground is going to change that. 

 

Campaigning against the objectification and hyper-sexualisation of women in media and the use of sex to manipulate people into buying things doesn’t make anyone sex-negative.

 
 

I also totally disagree with your implication that if it weren’t for the portrayal of women in media that it would much change the way men view female breasts. You think guys liking boobs is a modern invention or something? I assure you it goes back many millennia.

 

It’s perfectly natural for guys to be turned on by female breasts and butts and waist-hip ratios just as it’s natural for women to like guys with big muscles. Denying that would be going against millions of years of human evolution and sexual selection hardwired into men’s brains...

 

All I’m saying is that breasts need not be viewed as so sexual that the mere difference between a woman wearing a bikini and going topless turns men into leering chimps and makes them spontaneously jizz in their pants or something.

 

So you think males are biologically hardwired to sexualise female breasts?

 

I suggest that merely the pervasive exposure of breasts will not result in their de/lesser-sexualisation, if that is how free the nipple people are trying to achieve it. Otherwise, thanks to the internet, the female breast would be as sexualised as a lump of fat. I think you’re overestimating the power of breasts if you think merely seeing them bared results in spontaneous orgasm in men. That’s kinda funny….  

 

Even as recently as the renaissance it seems to me nudity and sex was a popular theme in art and sculpture and I don’t have a problem with that.

 

I wasn’t referring to nudity/sex in art and sculpture. I was referring to its use in marketing and advertisement, a sector that generally has (at least for me) sufficiently demonstrated its lack of integrity in pursuit of $$. But I guess you don’t have a problem with that as you mentioned….

 

You don’t feel that being inside a building with guests is more intimate than being outside by a pool or something -- i.e. normal places where people wear bikinis -- and that that thus makes it less socially acceptable? 

 

Certainly, a home context is more intimate but it shouldn’t be more intimate for a female than a male. You might have misunderstood the scenario. It only refers to female toplessness in entertaining guests when male toplessness would be appropriate. As indicated by the last two sentences of the section you quoted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So LadyKaede, do you personally want to go topless in public yourself or do you just support it in theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know why you’re nitpicking at my wording here when it’s obvious from the rest of my post that I was saying people’s bodies and sexuality shouldn’t be policed based on the unreasonable demands of sexually frustrated fundamentalists, not some bizarre absolute where I’m somehow saying there should never be any restrictions and anything goes as long as it’s not actively physically harming anyone… or something. You keep thinking in black and white extremes and trying to imply some sort of slippery slope where there is none. I’m merely advocating that women be allowed to go topless wherever they are currently allowed to wear bikinis and men are allowed to go shirtless. That is all. There is no more a slippery slope from that to genital nudity and public sex than when it became acceptable for women to start wearing more revealing swimsuits at the beginning of the last century. 

 

Could similar arguments as those made to justify one form of nudity be made to justify other forms of nudity as well? Of course. Does arguing that women be allowed to wear anything less than a burka on the basis of freedom of expression mean that one therefore has to support all public nudity in all contexts in order to be consistent? No. No, it doesn’t. That’s just ridiculous and dishonest and it’s not an argument. I don’t know what else to say.

 

Perhaps it is due to my familiarity with legal issues, but the rationale for an opinion can be just as important (frequently more so!) than the opinion itself. To your opinion you attached a rationale which could be used extensively to support related issues significantly impacting on the use of public space. While it might not be great practice, you are as free to spout as many not-well-developed/formulated/specific rationales that support a host of related or unrelated issues as you please. I was attempting to ascertain what, more specifically, you meant by your rationale. How am I supposed to know you do not support public sex or genital exposure as much as toplessness? Furthermore, qualifying your rationale by referring to ‘unreasonable demands of sexually frustrated fundamentalists’ is hardly informative nor did it bound your rationale of policing people’s bodies and sexuality.

 

I’m not sure how it works in your country but here in the US we’re a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy, and we have this thing called the Constitution that is supposed to guarantee certain inalienable rights to its citizens that cannot just be stripped away at the arbitrary whims of the majority. One such right guaranteed by the Constitution is freedom of speech and expression.

 

I’m no expert on the US Constitution but consider it exceptionally violated as it stands. But even so, there can be entrenched clauses in constitutions that can be very hard to amend. But no legal system can guarantee inalienable rights. It depends purely on the activism of its subjects. In regard to the US Constitution, Article 5 provides for Constitutional amendment; the 1st and 14th Amendments are precisely what they are called: amendments. So technically a majority can strip these “rights†“arbitrarily†in the USA, the merits of this being the case is another matter. 

 

 

I’ve already said this multiple times: anywhere where men can go shirtless and women can wear bikinis.

 

That didn’t answer my question at all. I did not ask in which context you think it should be legal for women to go shirtless. I asked: In which contexts do you consider it should be legal for men to be shirtless.

 

I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make by pointing out that clothing norms vary between countries. 

 

As for kids whose parents are terrified of their children seeing that, they can just avoid taking them to beaches and places where seeing that is more likely, just as ultra-Muslim or Amish parents can try to avoid allowing their kids to see women in bikinis. But venturing into public spaces will always pose the risk of being exposed to something that somebody somewhere could find offensive, and as I said before, society is not obligated to bend over backwards to accommodate itself to every entitled puritan who insists the world become a G rated bubble for them. 

 

A policy of “women can go topless wherever men can go shirtless†will have a very different practical effect depending on the locality. If your locality has an annual average maximum temperature of 35.6C (Wyndham, WA) or 7.5C (Collinsvale, TAS) environmental factors will play a crucial role in determining the practical effect of the policy. There would be comparatively little upper-body barring in Collinsvale even if it was perfectly legal, not so in Wyndham. Parents or individuals who want to avoid toplessness could predominantly do so by avoiding certain (relatively confined) areas in an environment such as Collinsvale (e.g. public pools, beaches), not so in an environment like Wyndhams. And yes, these are extreme temperature variances found within Australia but it still illustrates the point. Unless you believe toplessness is some kind of right that must be respected regardless of effect then taking into account localities’ culture and environment become important. Hence my question of where you think male barechestedness should be legal….

 

Yes, entering the public space risks exposure to things you’d rather not experience. However, people living in an area and making use of the “common property†that is the public space should have a strong say in what should be considered allowable to promote the public enjoyment of those spaces. What is more reasonable: that the vast majority is exposed in certain public spaces to something they’d rather not be or that the small minority restrict the unwanted exposure to the spaces specifically intended to accommodate their desires i.e. nudist areas? It’s not like we are denying the minority potable water! If the freethenipple people don’t want to be restricted to nudist areas because they’d be exposed to genitals they might just have to do what they say everyone else should do for them: avert your eyes.

 

If freethenipple were to successfully hold a local referendum on toplessness in my area and succeed then I would respect that, though it would not infringe my political freedom to campaign against it. When it comes to the use of public spaces, particularly for such issues as toplessness which have the potential to affect the majority of the public, I don’t think pushing for it through the courts, as opposed to public/popular support, is the most desirable tactic. I think their efforts would be much more wisely spent in increasing public nudist (or semi-nudist) areas – if not on a permanent basis, then intermittently.

 

 

As far as biological hardwiring to sexualise female breasts is concerned, anthropological studies are showing that it is not hardwired but socially constructed. Accepting that media plays a significant role in social constructions, I think it is hard to reject its influence over the sexualisation of female breasts. 

 

...why is it such a problem for you to use your personal agency and self-control to ignore female toplessness at beaches that you instead feel the need to have the state regulate them for you?

 

Again, my concern is not purely motivated by my self-interest. It’s not just about what I think or what I could do. I have the "curtesy" to consider other's' positions.

 

Furthermore, since when are we restricting our discussion to beaches?! Freethenipple isn't just pushing for toplessness at beaches….In Australia topless sunbathing is generally legal (though councils can make regulations against it) or ignored if not conducted too blithely. Personally, I have found it annoying especially when there is a nude beach just around the corner or there is enough beach space to move your sunbathing to a less populated area….

 

No, I wouldn't personally want to go topless in public and I don't even wear bikinis because they just don’t make me feel comfortable.

 

But I support other people being allowed to dress in ways that I wouldn't want to dress.

 

XKVQHXE.png

 

And you have a right to find nudity or modesty empowering! Regardless of its merit. As much as you have a right to believe in Santa Claus or not. That does not however give you a right to conduct your empowering actions in any setting that you choose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now