NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I think Americans are bit hypocritical to say Muslims are bad to force women to wear veils when men don't have to, then oppress women their own way. Of course, this is just my point-of-view. How about everybody else?

As long as they dont whine about being stared at by creepy strangers when topless, because it will happen a lot.

This poll lacks a neutral option. Fail.

As long as they dont whine about being stared at by creepy strangers when topless, because it will happen a lot.

They may get stared at anyway. That's their problem.

Personally, I think Americans are bit hypocritical to say Muslims are bad to force women to wear veils when men don't have to, then oppress women their own way. Of course, this is just my point-of-view. How about everybody else?

How about elaborating on how the united states oppress women?

How about elaborating on how the united states oppress women?

Most states force women to wear tops, but not men.

Most states force women to wear tops, but not men.

There are many instances where breastfeeding mothers are forced to go elsewhere or "cover up".

There are many instances where breastfeeding mothers are forced to go elsewhere or "cover up".

Exactly. The acme of obtuseness.

Women can go topless in Ontario. :)

Unfortunately few choose to. :(

it's an interesting question regarding whether this is equal or not. On one hand there is the simple analysis of the fact that men can go without tops in many circumstances that women can not. This on its face appears unequal.

On the other hand, breasts in our society are viewed as sexual organs. And men are not allowed to walk with their sexual organs exposed in public, and neither are women.

It really depends on your position I suppose. One can argue that both men and women are prohibited from exposing their sexual organs in public, women just happen to have theirs in more numerous places.

Most states force women to wear tops, but not men.

Somehow, I don't view this as oppression - being an American woman and all. The only real objection I have is having, occasionally, to look at a sunburned, paunchy man with man-boobs going shirtless - ew.

The real oppression is one of job opportunity and lack of equality before the law - and those are disappearing quickly.

Somehow, I don't view this as oppression - being an American woman and all.

And many of the women who wear veils don't see it as oppression. And during the early 1900's many women didn't think they should get the vote either.

What's your point?

There are many instances where breastfeeding mothers are forced to go elsewhere or "cover up".

I believe most of those incidents took place in Privately own property. malls, restruants and such.


Me, if a woman wants to go topless, or totally naked, hey, go for it. Of course, don't complain if people (like me) lewdly stare at you.

Somehow, I don't view this as oppression - being an American woman and all. The only real objection I have is having, occasionally, to look at a sunburned, paunchy man with man-boobs going shirtless - ew.
sorry... but my shirts were being washed... and I really had to run that errand...

on a serious note, DON'T watch NBC's reality health show "the Biggest Loser." :p

it's an interesting question regarding whether this is equal or not. On one hand there is the simple analysis of the fact that men can go without tops in many circumstances that women can not. This on its face appears unequal.

On the other hand, breasts in our society are viewed as sexual organs. And men are not allowed to walk with their sexual organs exposed in public, and neither are women.

It really depends on your position I suppose. One can argue that both men and women are prohibited from exposing their sexual organs in public, women just happen to have theirs in more numerous places.

Correct. But many Muslims might consider a woman's face sexual. Does that mean women should be forced to wear veils?

Correct. But many Muslims might consider a woman's face sexual. Does that mean women should be forced to wear veils?

the problem here is you are talking about a part of the anatomy that both men and women share, but placing a restriction on only the women's face. Men have a distinct lack of mammory glands.

Then of course, if we go the argument one further, and say "if men can go topless women can too" and allow that I can turn around and say "women can expose their sexual organs, I should be allowed to walk around without pants!"

Again, it's a matter of definition I think.

well in Europe they go topless and such often...but then again in Europe they are seem to be a lot more open minded when it comes to sexuality type things in public..where as here everyone seems to be "ahhh! The children can't see topless women...let them play video games where they kill police officers instead."

Women can go topless in Ontario. :)

Unfortunately few choose to. :(

I think we don't go topless for the most part because we don't want men (or women if she is a lesbian) staring at us.

I do believe there are a few who would do it. I think it might be more common place at the beach.

I believe most of those incidents took place in Privately own property. malls, restruants and such.


Me, if a woman wants to go topless, or totally naked, hey, go for it. Of course, don't complain if people (like me) lewdly stare at you.

http://ohrc.on.ca/english/guides/pregnancy-breastfeeding.shtml

You might want to double check that because at least here malls and restaurants, while privately owned cannot ask a breastfeeding mother to cover-up or move to a discreet place. This is why I believe that it is discrimination and an example of how women are still oppressed because we do have more protection here.

I realise that this applies in my province but knowing I have these rights as a woman makes me believe that this is one area where women are still faced with discrimination and are oppressed.

Services should also be provided free from discrimination. Some of these services and areas include:

* restaurants and cafés
* stores and malls
* schools
* parks

Also from the OHRC...

You have rights as a nursing mother. For example, you have the right to breastfeed a child in a public area. No one should prevent you from nursing your child simply because you are in a public area. They should not ask you to "cover up", disturb you, or ask you to move to another area that is more "discreet".

EDIT - I'll be happy to reply later, I'm going out! Yay! The political campaign trail is coming through my riding! Vote NDP!

On the other hand, breasts in our society are viewed as sexual organs. And men are not allowed to walk with their sexual organs exposed in public, and neither are women.


Exactly what I was going to say, almost word for word!


It really depends on your position I suppose. One can argue that both men and women are prohibited from exposing their sexual organs in public, women just happen to have theirs in more numerous places.

Yep, if men had penis's for nipples would they be allowed to go topless then?

Yep, if men had penis's for nipples would they be allowed to go topless then?

It would give a whole new definition to the phrase titty fu....erm...nm.

the problem here is you are talking about a part of the anatomy that both men and women share, but placing a restriction on only the women's face. Men have a distinct lack of mammory glands.

Last time I looked I had nipples...and...*gasp...I'm a man! And as strange as it sounds, I believe I read in the Discovery a while-back (in an article about useless body parts) that if a proper nerve is stimulated, certain men's nipples can secrete milk.


Then of course, if we go the argument one further, and say "if men can go topless women can too" and allow that I can turn around and say "women can expose their sexual organs, I should be allowed to walk around without pants!"

Again, it's a matter of definition I think.

So you're saying we have to stop and allow the oppression of women or else men may demand more rights? I don't see it happening in Europe.
We could call the mouth (or face) a sexual organ. If breasts have to do with sex, then so do fingers.

It would give a whole new definition to the phrase titty fu....erm...nm.

feck! My plans ruined! I was this close to hearing a lawyer say titty fuck.

It would give a whole new definition to the phrase titty fu....erm...nm.

You have both managed to deeply disturb me on a whole new level...

Last time I looked I had nipples...and...*gasp...I'm a man! And as strange as it sounds, I believe I read in the Discovery a while-back (in an article about useless body parts) that if a proper nerve is stimulated, certain men's nipples can secrete milk.

And yet as a society we don't view mens' nipples as sexual objects. We do womens'.

So you're saying we have to stop and allow the oppression of women

So your'e saying that preventing both men and women from showing their sexual organs in public is oppressing women more than men? The problem with your analogy is faulty. In nations under Sharia law, a lot of the restrictions on women aren't for "modesty". They're not for equal treatment of laws to men and women. They're not because the society really views the woman's face as a sexual area and treats exposure of sexual areas equally.

It's about controlling women. Nothing more, nothing less. It is oppressive because it seeks to oppress.

Saying that because we view women's breasts as sexual objects we can compell them to cover up their sexual organs just as we compel men to cover up their own isn't promulgated for the purposes of controlling, oppressing and subjugating women. It's the recognition that we view breasts, just as vaginas and penises, as sexual organs.

Also, unless they actually have a functioning mammory gland, mens nipples can't be induced to lactate. SOME can, but this is an uncommon quirk of birth and not the norm.

=Yep, if men had penis's for nipples would they be allowed to go topless then?

You are a moron. It's not women's fault that you're perverted enough to view a random part of their body as a sexual organ. We have one sexual organ, that's it. You can't procreate using breasts.

And what exactly have "nipples" to do with it? It's correct men are allowed to expose their nipples and women aren't. Women can show their breasts, but not their nipples, which is exceedingly strange.

feck! My plans ruined! I was this close to hearing a lawyer say titty fuck.

I'm sure he's said it before...in fact it could very well be his favorite past time..

You can't procreate using breasts.

Then you're doing it wrong.

And yet as a society we don't view mens' nipples as sexual objects. We do womens'.

Exactly. And many Muslims consider a woman's face to be sexual, but not a man's. Double standard.

So your'e saying that preventing both men and women from showing their sexual organs in public is oppressing women more than men?

No, I'm saying forcing them the cover-up their sexual parts, then forcing additional laws on women because their nipples are considered sexual, whereas men's aren't (like faces with veils) is oppressive.


The problem with your analogy is faulty. In nations under Sharia law, a lot of the restrictions on women aren't for "modesty". They're not for equal treatment of laws to men and women. They're not because the society really views the woman's face as a sexual area and treats exposure of sexual areas equally.

It's about controlling women. Nothing more, nothing less. It is oppressive because it seeks to oppress.

It's effectively the same thing. Just to a lesser extent.

Saying that because we view women's breasts as sexual objects we can compell them to cover up their sexual organs just as we compel men to cover up their own isn't promulgated for the purposes of controlling, oppressing and subjugating women. It's the recognition that we view breasts, just as vaginas and penises, as sexual organs.

See, but who are we to say they're sexual?

Also, unless they actually have a functioning mammory gland, mens nipples can't be induced to lactate. SOME can, but this is an uncommon quirk of birth and not the norm.

No, it's quite common. About 75% of males to quote the article.

Exactly. And many Muslims consider a woman's face to be sexual, but not a man's. Double standard.

OK then, and here we actually have a point, which is different than the "women can't go topless". I can counter that women have full breasts, men don't, but again, you're right, women can show MUCH of their breast, just not the whole thing.

No, I'm saying forcing them the cover-up their sexual parts, then forcing additional laws on women because their nipples are considered sexual, whereas men's aren't (like faces with veils) is oppressive.

Again I would argue that it's not just the nipples, but the rest of the thing attached to the nipple which creates something in its entirety that men lack.

It's effectively the same thing. Just to a lesser extent.

Except it's not, at all.

See, but who are we to say they're sexual?

Socialized sexual beings.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Pardon? Are you saying that if a woman doesn't have breast (if they were amputated) she can't procreate?

If you're referring to tactile congress, then I must point-out that many parts of the body are touched, including those we don't normally consider sexual.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Indeed...perhaps a lecture is in order to educate those who don't know how..?

And it all depends on the view of the human body.....in Europe they are more open and accepting of it..here the trick is to show off as much as possible without showing it all...showing some is "sexy" showing it all is "trashy"..however here if a women's breast is out..it will either A. Be promptly covered up or B. Put on the front cover of tabloids or end up in some college spring break porn video.....or a combination of A and B..whereas in the Middle east if a woman shows her face she can be beaten with clubs or jailed...

Pardon? Are you saying that if a woman doesn't have breast (if they were amputated) she can't procreate?

If you're referring to tactile congress, then I must point-out that many parts of the body are touched, including those we don't normally consider sexual.

I am saying that many women may well laugh at you if you tell them their breasts aren't sexual parts.

Personally, I think Americans are bit hypocritical to say Muslims are bad to force women to wear veils when men don't have to, then oppress women their own way. Of course, this is just my point-of-view. How about everybody else?

This OP fails for several reasons.

Reason 1: "Americans" don't say Muslims are bad to force their women to wear veils, anyone educated in the ideas of the enlightenment says this as well. It's hardly just "Americans", troll.

Reason 2: Not taking your clothes off is not even in the same ballpark as forcing women to dress up in full robes and/or veils when it is very hot out in the desert..or if this is outside the middle east, it simply isolates these women from society, troll.

Reason 3: Well it's simply not true. In my state I know a very awesome place where I run into hot blonde women with fake boobs for all the world to see laying on the sand. Ever heard of a little place called South Beach? Yeah....so.. don't just make accusations about "America" and "Americans" when I can pick them apart so easily, troll.

You lose your own thread. :)

I am saying that many women may well laugh at you if you tell them their breasts aren't sexual parts.

I don't see how they're inherently any more or less sexual than a man's nipples. His nipples can be used much the same way in sexual play...

OK then, and here we actually have a point, which is different than the "women can't go topless". I can counter that women have full breasts, men don't, but again, you're right, women can show MUCH of their breast, just not the whole thing.

Precisely. Technically it's only illegal to show the nipple, which is the one part the man possesses.

Again I would argue that it's not just the nipples, but the rest of the thing attached to the nipple which creates something in its entirety that men lack.

See above point. Also note that many men have fat deposits on their chests.

Except it's not, at all.

In theory it isn't. In effect it's precisely the same thing.

Socialized sexual beings.

The same beings who didn't want give women the vote. Socialized government beings.

And many of the women who wear veils don't see it as oppression. And during the early 1900's many women didn't think they should get the vote either.

What's your point?

Did you read the rest of my post? There are things more important than what you are required or permitted to wear.

the problem here is you are talking about a part of the anatomy that both men and women share, but placing a restriction on only the women's face. Men have a distinct lack of mammory glands.

Then of course, if we go the argument one further, and say "if men can go topless women can too" and allow that I can turn around and say "women can expose their sexual organs, I should be allowed to walk around without pants!"

Again, it's a matter of definition I think.

It's only the nipples that have to be covered, not the entire breast. In most places, at least, a woman's nipples have to be covered, and the rest of her breast can be showing without any type of indecency charge.

Men have nipples, but can show them freely.

This OP fails for several reasons.

Reason 1: "Americans" don't say Muslims are bad to force their women to wear veils, anyone educated in the ideas of the enlightenment says this as well. It's hardly just "Americans", troll.

Many do.

Reason 2: Not taking your clothes off is not even in the same ballpark as forcing women to dress up in full robes and/or veils when it is very hot out in the desert..or if this is outside the middle east, it simply isolates these women from society, troll.

It might be hot in a park. It is forcing women to "dress-up", just to a lesser extent.

Reason 3: Well it's simply not true. In my state I know a very awesome place where I run into hot blonde women with fake boobs for all the world to see laying on the sand. Ever heard of a little place called South Beach? Yeah....so.. don't just make accusations about "America" and "Americans" when I can pick them apart so easily, troll.


I generalize. I believe 90% of America is good enough. That's like saying you found Nudist resort in California, therefor it's legal in America to go around naked.

You lose your own thread. :)

You logic appears to be impaired.

And yet as a society we don't view mens' nipples as sexual objects. We do womens'.

?????

Just about everyone I know views a man's nipples as sexual objects. Definitely most of the women I know.

I am saying that many women may well laugh at you if you tell them their breasts aren't sexual parts.

And in the past many black people would laugh at me if I told them they weren't inferior to whites.

And in the 1850's many women would laugh at me if I told them they deserved a vote.

And...what exactly is your point here?

Court adjourned. I take my lunch, I shall return.

Many do.



It might be hot in a park. It is forcing women to "dress-up", just to a lesser extent.




I generalize. I believe 90% of America is good enough. That's like saying you found Nudist resort in California, therefor it's legal in America to go around naked.



You logic appears to be impaired.

Women here can freely go outside in a bikini top or tank top if its hot outside...and again...in the USA if a woman goes about topless the most that will occur is a fine for indecent exposure...although most women don't do this unless their under the influence of something or in the privacy of their own home...in which case they aren't penalized...reason they don't walk around that way probably because of the perverts who would gawk at them all day...

A Muslim woman on the other hand by simply not wearing her veil could very well lead to her being put to death or imprisoned or beaten by the religious police...depending on what Islamic country she is living in..Egypt for example doesn't make its women wear veils..

If you want to talk about the USA oppressing women you would have to go with the equal wages for equal work argument...and even that is getting better...

Lastly if anything in America our women are somewhat encouraged to be thin..and wear "sexy" clothing...not cover up...

I am saying that many women may well laugh at you if you tell them their breasts aren't sexual parts.
My breasts aren't any more "sexual" than any other part of my body.

To respond to the topic, I certainly believe that men and women should be free to bare their chests in public, with the exception of places where health code issues would become involved.

Myself, I would not choose to go topless very often, simply because I'm vastly more comfortable when the twins have some support.

You are a moron. It's not women's fault that you're perverted enough to view a random part of their body as a sexual organ. We have one sexual organ, that's it. You can't procreate using breasts.

And what exactly have "nipples" to do with it? It's correct men are allowed to expose their nipples and women aren't. Women can show their breasts, but not their nipples, which is exceedingly strange.

:rolleyes:

If you are a man:

Are you gay or asexual?

If you are a woman:

Do you get turned on by mens nipples?

My breasts aren't any more "sexual" than any other part of my body.

To respond to the topic, I certainly believe that men and women should be free to bare their chests in public, with the exception of places where health code issues would become involved.

Myself, I would not choose to go topless very often, simply because I'm vastly more comfortable when the twins have some support.

Maybe not to you but to society in general they are

And in the past many black people would laugh at me if I told them they weren't inferior to whites.

And in the 1850's many women would laugh at me if I told them they deserved a vote.

And...what exactly is your point here?

Please tell me you are joking. I honestly cannot believe you are comparing not allowing breasts to be seen in public with racism, or even any kind of prejudice at all.

Do you understand why men don't hang their dick out in public?

Maybe not to you but to society in general they are
Society has held a lot of silly notions. At one time in history, the legs of pianos had to be covered with little skirts lest they arouse unseemly passions in all who caught sight of them.

:rolleyes:

If you are a man:

Are you gay or asexual?

If you are a woman:

Do you get turned on by mens nipples?

Never would have guessed a debate would come down to nipples...

Whenever the issue comes up in my nation, I always vote for compulsory nudity for everyone.

Whenever the issue comes up in my nation, I always vote for compulsory nudity for everyone.
Uck, I strongly oppose. I like to jog, and there's no freaking way I'm doing that in the nude. The bouncing is painful. :(

If you are a woman:

Do you get turned on by mens nipples?

This wasn't directed at me:

If they're nice ones and he has a nice chest? Yup. And I know that playing with them can get at least some men really turned on.

This wasn't directed at me:

If they're nice ones and he has a nice chest? Yup. And I know that playing with them can get at least some men really turned on.

:eek:

Do most womynz get turned on by man nipples!? Or is it just you?

:eek:

Do most womynz get turned on by man nipples!? Or is it just you?
Dunno about most women, but I like man nipples.

Dunno about most women, but I like man nipples.

*does not necessarily endorse moobs*

Do you understand why men don't hang their dick out in public?

Self-esteem issues?

Self-esteem issues?
I understand there are also safety considerations when it comes to the male genitals. Personally, if I had one of those I wouldn't want it flopping around freely as I went about my work day. I'd want at least one layer of protection between it and the cold, cruel world.

I also have been given to understand that at least some men experience the same type of, erm, "support" issues with their genitals that many women have with their breasts. That is, some men prefer to have their twins comfortably supported, as opposed to hanging freely.

I understand there are also safety considerations when it comes to the male genitals. Personally, if I had one of those I wouldn't want it flopping around freely as I went about my work day. I'd want at least one layer of protection between it and the cold, cruel world.

My second guess. *nod*

I also have been given to understand that at least some men experience the same type of, erm, "support" issues with their genitals that many women have with their breasts. That is, some men prefer to have their twins comfortably supported, as opposed to hanging freely.

Actually the freedom is quite, uh...free. :p It's just, if I get pantsed, what then?

I also have been given to understand that at least some men experience the same type of, erm, "support" issues with their genitals that many women have with their breasts. That is, some men prefer to have their twins comfortably supported, as opposed to hanging freely.

Real men wear boxer shorts, we don't need tight pants to support our organs!

Actually the freedom is quite, uh...free. :p It's just, if I get pantsed, what then?
Well, I was told by one man that as he got older he started to feel that things were hanging lower, and he started preferring boxer briefs when he used to prefer boxers. He said it was because he appreciated a bit more support. Now, I have a sample size of 1, so it might just be one dude's opinion, but that's at least one dude who has a reason for wearing undies which goes beyond personal modesty.

Real men wear boxer shorts
Which, for the record, is such a pity. Boxer briefs outline everything so much more pleasantly...

Real men wear boxer shorts, we don't need tight pants to support our organs!

Fashionable men wear tight boxerbriefs that suggest much while revealing little.
Edit: ninja'ed by Bottle.

Society has held a lot of silly notions. At one time in history, the legs of pianos had to be covered with little skirts lest they arouse unseemly passions in all who caught sight of them.

I like me some sexy piano legs..and Commando is the only way to go...unless its quite cold outside...then maybe an extra layer (boxer shorts) is in order..as for moobs I would rather die than loose my pecs...

And many of the women who wear veils don't see it as oppression. And during the early 1900's many women didn't think they should get the vote either.

What's your point?

Perhaps we should have listened to them.

Oppression is a matter of perspective. From our standpoint, or from the standpoint of the United States, "oppression" exists in some form whereby an offending nation or religion exhibits different behavior. And those who claim oppression in the US are guilty of the same perception problems. It's just reality; there is no absolute truth. Except, of course, your own.

Opinions on tighty-whiteys?

My breasts aren't any more "sexual" than any other part of my body.

Exactly. To the baby that a woman nurses, the breast is a source of delicious milk! Mmmm... milk.

No one has anything else to say on my posts about breastfeeding? After all, it has the woman exposing a breast, even if the nipple IS in the kid's mouth.

Fashionable men wear tight boxerbriefs that suggest much while revealing little.
Edit: ninja'ed by Bottle.

depends on the occasion of whether or not I would wear boxers or briefs...playing sports etc briefs nothing sucks more than having them bounce into one another....lounging around the house etc boxers are the way to go...and we have left out speedo's lol

Opinions on tighty-whiteys?

Much less preferable than briefs or boxers. Jock straps, on the other hand...

Opinions on tighty-whiteys?

those are for old men..or creepy pervs...

Opinions on tighty-whiteys?

They are little boy's underwear. Unfit for grown men to wear.

Opinions on tighty-whiteys?

pawned by an Egyptian Leather Thong.

http://ohrc.on.ca/english/guides/pregnancy-breastfeeding.shtml

You might want to double check that because at least here malls and restaurants, while privately owned cannot ask a breastfeeding mother to cover-up or move to a discreet place. This is why I believe that it is discrimination and an example of how women are still oppressed because we do have more protection here.

I realise that this applies in my province but knowing I have these rights as a woman makes me believe that this is one area where women are still faced with discrimination and are oppressed.

unfortunaly, that's up in Canada.

here, tho, I believe it's up to the establishment or if anyone 'complains'. yes, when I worked as a bookseller, I would be talking to mothers while they are nursing. It really doesn't bother me and some women do try to take steps to cover up.

I would eat in restruants where a mother would be nursing next to me and it doesn't bother me.

Unfortunatly tho. I know it bothers some people out there.

Much less preferable than briefs or boxers. Jock straps, on the other hand...

*wikis*

Uh, sounds like they -are- briefs...

:eek:

Do most womynz get turned on by man nipples!? Or is it just you?

Most of the women I've talked to about it like man nipples. I know one woman who blushes bright red if a guy she thinks is cute touches his nipples in her presence. Maybe this is a good poll topic?

Most of the women I've talked to about it like man nipples. I know one woman who blushes bright red if a guy she thinks is cute touches his nipples in her presence. Maybe this is a good poll topic?

Yes.

Again, we must note if this does or does not endorse moobs.

Yes.

Again, we must note if this does or does not endorse moobs.

No, I don't know anyone who endorses moobs. But nice pecs with hot man nipples?? =)

No, I don't know anyone who endorses moobs. But nice pecs with hot man nipples?? =)

Nice pecs with hot man nipples gets my vote.

To reiterate the common female opinion on this thread, I, too, am baffled by the notion that the female chest is sexual and the male chest is not. I don't know about this mythical "we" Neo Art mentioned who consider this to be true, but I find female breasts quite boring and male chests - and, yes, male nipples - to be quite sexy.

Basically, I think the simple truth is that obscenity laws around the world have mostly been written by heterosexual men, and are applied accordingly. Not being a heterosexual man myself, I can see why this is silly, and am instead in favor of nudity laws that simply reflect health issues, not anyone's silly uptight boobie-fears. :p

I'm too sexy for the Law.

Exactly. To the baby that a woman nurses, the breast is a source of delicious milk! Mmmm... milk.

No one has anything else to say on my posts about breastfeeding? After all, it has the woman exposing a breast, even if the nipple IS in the kid's mouth.

Apparently 12,000 women per year are arrested for breastfeeding in public. However, this is an unsupported claim, as far as I can tell.

Most states in the USA have legislation clarifying the federal law that protects a woman's right to breastfeed in public.

http://www.llli.org/llleaderweb/LV/LVJunJul05p51.html

However, most places in the USA still allow people to ask women to leave if they are breastfeeding on private property, such as a restaurant. A few places in the USA have made this illegal as well.

http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2007/01/finally-breastfeeding-law-with-teeth_06.html

Here in Quebec, it is illegal to ask a woman to cover up or move if she is breastfeeding in public or any other place where a woman would normally be.

Somehow, I don't view this as oppression - being an American woman and all. The only real objection I have is having, occasionally, to look at a sunburned, paunchy man with man-boobs going shirtless - ew.

The real oppression is one of job opportunity and lack of equality before the law - and those are disappearing quickly.

Yes there is an equality before the law, but its the men who are treated unfairly. If a woman is sexist in a court room it it disregarded by the media and the law as the women being slightly upset. When men are sexist there are rallys, media frenzies and law punishments. Women know how to give but not take, and its because of this logic that women were oppressed in the first place.

Here in Quebec, it is illegal to ask a woman to cover up or move if she is breastfeeding in public or any other place where a woman would normally be.
As it should be.

However, we ought to take it a step further and legalize women going topless as well. I don't know if any would do so, but holding a double-standard regarding what is or is not indecent seems awfully hypocritical.

Men are allowed to go shirtless if they want to, women should be allowed the same liberty.

It's effectively the same thing. Just to a lesser extent.



That is a statement with no real value. A puddle is effectively the same thing as an ocean, just to a lesser extent.

That "lesser extent" can hide a vast difference.

That is a statement with no real value. A puddle is effectively the same thing as an ocean, just to a lesser extent.

That "lesser extent" can hide a vast difference.

Okay, so what is the vast difference? Do define it for us.

Okay, so what is the vast difference? Do define it for us.

There are a gajillion more gallons of water in the ocean than in a poodle.

Duh.

There are a gajillion more gallons of water in the ocean than in a poodle.

Duh.

Oh, yeah? What if it was a really big, thirsty poodle, huh? :p

I would say that we should encourage the wearing of clothes.
Encourage =/= enforcing.

The lack of understanding of the concept of the veil is astounding. The veil is a choice, but nonetheless, in my opinion, comes down to a Pre-Islamic tradition.

The Qur'an never defines what Hijab is, other than saying women should cover themselves. The most specific it gets is cover their private parts and keep modest. I am associated with the Bektashi Order of Sufis, and they do not believe in the veil, only modest dress as defined in the Qur'an.

A woman's breasts are generally considered to be private parts, for the sake of modesty and decency, I would say that we should encourage the wearing of clothes.

Then you're doing it wrong.

i lol'd

Oh, yeah? What if it was a really big, thirsty poodle, huh? :p

Oh yeah! Yea! well...uhm....

*cries*

Why do you have to refute my arguments and be so mean!!?! :(

Oh yeah! Yea! well...uhm....

*cries*

Why do you have to refute my arguments and be so mean!!?! :(

Aw, it's okay. Have some man-nipples. Everybody likes those. :)

unfortunaly, that's up in Canada.

here, tho, I believe it's up to the establishment or if anyone 'complains'. yes, when I worked as a bookseller, I would be talking to mothers while they are nursing. It really doesn't bother me and some women do try to take steps to cover up.

I would eat in restruants where a mother would be nursing next to me and it doesn't bother me.

Unfortunatly tho. I know it bothers some people out there.

I did acknowledge that it's just here for now. However, because we have such liberties, I view the lack of such liberties in other western nation as a form of oppression against women.

There is plenty of crap that bothers me but I've got to learn to live with it because if you* sweat the small stuff, you won't be able to even deal with the bigger picture.

I also used this as an example because it is the most obvious at this time. It does affect all women, even if we aren't all subject to this. It is a hot-button topic in my province right now. There were a couple of documented cases of discrimination but in both cases the women were given a green light for their actions.


* the general 'you'

Aw, it's okay. Have some man-nipples. Everybody likes those. :)

:eek:

I think my own are enough for me right now...

As it should be.

However, we ought to take it a step further and legalize women going topless as well. I don't know if any would do so, but holding a double-standard regarding what is or is not indecent seems awfully hypocritical.

Men are allowed to go shirtless if they want to, women should be allowed the same liberty.

If all the women went topless in the summer, it would be a big deal for the first few days and then we would all get bored of the novelty.

Don't you live around here?

Would make Britain more European, at the expense of Blackpool being filled with topless old women. Not really sure whether it's a good idea after all.

If all the women went topless in the summer, it would be a big deal for the first few days and then we would all get bored of the novelty.

Don't you live around here?

As a gay man, I couldn't care less about women going around topless. It's really about the equality issue I'm arguing for it, I don't have any other interest in the matter.

Woman's naked breasts leave me completely and utterly neutral.

Oh, yeah? What if it was a really big, thirsty poodle, huh? :p

then it will leave an even bigger and smellier puddle. :D

I also used this as an example because it is the most obvious at this time. It does affect all women, even if we aren't all subject to this. It is a hot-button topic in my province right now. There were a couple of documented cases of discrimination but in both cases the women were given a green light for their actions.

* the general 'you'

I am kinda interested in what the opposition says. I've heard arguments here (in the USA) that it's unsanitary for the child as much as it is immoral. and most of the arguments are women, not men.

same with the topless issue. it's usually (though not always) the woman complaining about other topless women.

If all the women went topless in the summer, it would be a big deal for the first few days and then we would all get bored of the novelty.
I know I wouldn't.

As a gay man, I couldn't care less about women going around topless. It's really about the equality issue I'm arguing for it, I don't have any other interest in the matter.

Woman's naked breasts leave me completely and utterly neutral.

I don't really find women's breasts to be inherently sexual either, but I realise that many people do, or believe others do. What I was trying to say was that even for those who currently view women's breasts as sexual, it would be boring after a few days.

I am kinda interested in what the opposition says. I've heard arguments here (in the USA) that it's unsanitary for the child as much as it is immoral. and most of the arguments are women, not men.

same with the topless issue. it's usually (though not always) the woman complaining about other topless women.

And these women complain about the topless women for the same reason: they were also brought up to believe that women's breasts are sexual. I would put forth the guess that such a belief lies behind people's desires to keep breast feeding out of public areas. If you think a woman's nipple is sexual, then you may become uncomfortable when you see her child licking it.

And these women complain about the topless women for the same reason: they were also brought up to believe that women's breasts are sexual. I would put forth the guess that such a belief lies behind people's desires to keep breast feeding out of public areas. If you think a woman's nipple is sexual, then you may become uncomfortable when you see her child licking it.

:p I thought that was very amusing. For some reason.

Anyway, there are people who think feet are very sexual... so.. I guess we can't please everyone, so we might as well please no one.

I for one never saw a child licking it. Sucking on it yes, but not licking it. :p

Maybe thats why it was so funny. :p

Edit: unless there are some really creepy babies out there....
<.<

>.>
dun dun dunnn....

:p I thought that was very amusing. For some reason.
I for one never saw a child licking it. Sucking on it yes, but not licking it. :p

Being a straight male, my call for this kind of equality may just be seen as another call from the horny and lonely, but I do think it's a double standard.

And to the arguments that the upper portion of the males body is not seen as a sexual object, I know several women that get all hot and bothered when they see a "good-looking" man topless (I'm often referred to Brad Pitt in Fight Club, though this may just be the women I know.)


So, it does seem to be a double standard. (And I'm only a little horny and lonely ;))

WHOO!!!!! Free the Twins!!!!!

:D:D:D

Reason 2: Not taking your clothes off is not even in the same ballpark as forcing women to dress up in full robes and/or veils when it is very hot out in the desert..
:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagelmust

I voted for the third option, but the fourth one fits me better.

I fail to see any real justification for public nudity prohibitions.

And to the arguments that the upper portion of the males body is not seen as a sexual object

Hahahahahahahaha....

I fail to see any real justification for public nudity prohibitions.

*points to you* *almost gags, then chuckles through spit-up*

:p

And yet as a society we don't view mens' nipples as sexual objects.

In a society where straight men rule, we would expect exactly that--just as the societal sexism in some Muslim countries creates different social connotations for an exposed female face and an exposed male face.

It does not follow that we should let this bias dictate our laws.

*points to you* *almost gags, then chuckles through spit-up*

:p

You can always avert your eyes. ;)

Correct. But many Muslims might consider a woman's face sexual. Does that mean women should be forced to wear veils?

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.

Breasts are at least halfway there.

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?

A face is NOT a sexual organ.

In what sense not... keeping in mind that we are talking about different cultures here?

As it should be.

However, we ought to take it a step further and legalize women going topless as well. I don't know if any would do so, but holding a double-standard regarding what is or is not indecent seems awfully hypocritical.

Men are allowed to go shirtless if they want to, women should be allowed the same liberty.

I personally think we should instead make it illegal for fat guys to go topless. I find that far more repulsive than a topless woman. *nods*

I am kinda interested in what the opposition says. I've heard arguments here (in the USA) that it's unsanitary for the child as much as it is immoral. and most of the arguments are women, not men.

same with the topless issue. it's usually (though not always) the woman complaining about other topless women.

I've heard the "immoral" part as the breast is considered highly sexual. I've never heard the of the unsanitary part. How strange.

It seems that the women opposed to it have likely been shamed into thinking that it's wrong and that this part of the body should be concealed from the public view despite being a natural, beautiful thing. The breast is not any more sexual than other parts of the body. The breast is not sexual at all the the child sucking on the nipple. All the kid knows is, "mmm... that's some damn good milk ma makes."

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.

Breasts are at least halfway there.

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, but so is facial hair. Are we going to mandate that that be covered up in public places now?

You can always avert your eyes. ;)

Its like they say though about all unlikely fatal chances in life.
"It only has to happen once." :p

Its like they say though about all unlikely fatal chances in life.
"It only has to happen once." :p

However ghastly my (or anyone else's) appearance, I don't think death is very high on the list of likely consequences.

I see no reason for clothing to be enforce in the 21th century.

As long as they dont whine about being stared at by creepy strangers when topless, because it will happen a lot.

Not if they're 60.

However my ghastly my (or anyone else's) appearance, I don't think death is very high on the list of likely consequences.

Good point. I have survived looking in the mirror. Though, certain people can only stomach pictures of me.:p(not literally stomach, as in eat..obviously, though I wonder how photos taste...)

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.

Breasts are at least halfway there.

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?

The breast is not a sexual organ in cultures in which the breast is ordinarily visible. The fact that it is covered is what makes it sexual. Remember, it was only a couple of decades ago that you weren't allowed to see a woman's naval on TV because it was thought too provocative.

As for the breastfeeding, why should I have my wife leave the table to make my daughter eat in the bathroom? Neither of us take our meals in the bathroom.

Not if they're 60.

In that case they probably won't opt to go topless anyway, if you think about it.

In that case they probably won't opt to go topless anyway, if you think about it.

Have you ever been to a nudist camp? They are not pretty people. Nor are they particularly young.

Have you ever been to a nudist camp? They are not pretty people. Nor are they particularly young.

Ah, I just figured that the majority of 60 year olds, having been brought up and lived in a society with different values/standards, would opt not to go around with the top down.

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.

Neither is a breast, at least no more so than my neck, or my thighs, or my lips - all of which I can show off in public with no problem.

Breasts are at least halfway there.

In what way? How are breasts inherently more sexual than a man's nipples? Or a person's lips?

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?

Why would you want to hide it? I eat out in public all the time. Why should an infant feeding be hidden from public view?

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.
it's not?

Breasts are at least halfway there.
only because you want them to be, not because they are. I declare hairy man chests sexual organs!

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?

breasts are made for feeding babies. I breastfed my children whenever and wherever they were hungry, on planes, trains, in doctor offices, at playgrounds, in restaurants and even during church services. It's nothing shameful.

I declare my chest to be THE sexual standard that all man chests be based off of.

Then we wouldn't want you to hide it, would we?

I swear, that book has to be the slowest-paced novel ever.

Anyway, I wonder how many men voted for topless equality for reasons other than equality? :P

it's not?

only because you want them to be, not because they are. I declare hairy man chests sexual organs!

breasts are made for feeding babies. I breastfed my children whenever and wherever they were hungry, on planes, trains, in doctor offices, at playgrounds, in restaurants and even during church services. It's nothing shameful.

Only in *America.

I declare my chest to be THE sexual standard that all man chests be based off of.

You..you...Harlot! Someone get me a red 'A' here! ASAP!

*everywhere

Then we wouldn't want you to hide it, would we?

Oh, I am just setting a low standard, so no one is embarrassed when we all collectively rip off our tops and live in our neat little topless society.

Oh, I am just setting a low standard, so no one is embarrassed when we all collectively rip off our tops and live in our neat little topless society.

I can go with that.

There are many instances where breastfeeding mothers are forced to go elsewhere or "cover up".

Didn't the federal courts over turn those laws? At least in New York??

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?

Because it's stupid to have to go hide away to engage in the oh-so-shameful act of feeding one's children?

Honestly, the people who find breastfeeding sexual or dirty give me the creeps. I can think of very little less dirty or shameful by any sane standard.

Yes there is an equality before the law, but its the men who are treated unfairly. If a woman is sexist in a court room it it disregarded by the media and the law as the women being slightly upset. When men are sexist there are rallys, media frenzies and law punishments. Women know how to give but not take, and its because of this logic that women were oppressed in the first place.

Excuse me? It's only been in recent years that women have been allowed trial by a jury of their peers - i.e., other women.

And, if you've looked at any cases involving rape, the female victims are the ones put on trial.

Check your facts before making such silly blanket statements.

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.

The mouth is employed in kissing.


Breasts are at least halfway there.

How? I think you are mistaken.

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?

Maybe the kid is hungry. Why would you want to eat in front of everybody else? It's a public restaurant after-all.

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.

Oh dear. Oh you poor, poor dear.

You are missing out. :D


Breasts are at least halfway there.

I suppose technically this is correct, since many women have breasts that are roughly midway between their face and their reproductive organs.


Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?
Why not? I don't have a baby myself, but if I did I would feed it when it was hungry. The breast is a mobile milk bar. It's attached to our chest for a reason: because it allows us to feed our baby wherever we are. Why shouldn't I feed my baby if it's hungry?

If you are grossed out by a breast being used to feed a baby, I'd suggest you not stare when a woman chooses to feed her baby thusly. You are quite capable of looking at something else.

Didn't the federal courts over turn those laws? At least in New York??

If you read an earlier post of mine, I did cite that some laws now exist to protect women in this respect. The laws exists but some attitudes remain unchanged.

Well, A face is NOT a sexual organ.

I'd say a pretty face is damn close to a sexual organ.

Breasts are at least halfway there.

Then men should cover up as well.

Oh and, breastfeed in a private place thats not in open view, seriously. Why would you want to do that in plane view of everyone anyway?

Let's review what others have said about this, shall we? It seems that there is a general consensus here on this matter.

Why would you want to hide it? I eat out in public all the time. Why should an infant feeding be hidden from public view?

breasts are made for feeding babies. I breastfed my children whenever and wherever they were hungry, on planes, trains, in doctor offices, at playgrounds, in restaurants and even during church services. It's nothing shameful.

Maybe the kid is hungry. Why would you want to eat in front of everybody else? It's a public restaurant after-all.

Why not? I don't have a baby myself, but if I did I would feed it when it was hungry. The breast is a mobile milk bar. It's attached to our chest for a reason: because it allows us to feed our baby wherever we are. Why shouldn't I feed my baby if it's hungry?

If you are grossed out by a breast being used to feed a baby, I'd suggest you not stare when a woman chooses to feed her baby thusly. You are quite capable of looking at something else.

And why shouldn't the baby get the full benefit of its mother's milk? It's probably the best thing it'll ever eat in its whole life. There is nothing unhealthy about it. It's got all the vitamins and nutrients a baby needs.

I find a breastfeeding child to be a lot less messy and noisy than some people who eat out. Honesty, at least the child breastfeeds with its mouth closed.

actually, Sexual Organs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_organ)are pretty well defined here.

so declaring a face a sexual organ won't fly. of course one can say a face or hairy chest can be sexually stimulating. but they are not Sexual Organs.

and guess what else isn't a Sexual Organ?

but then again, I've never been one to complain about women going topless. :cool:

Let's review what others have said about this, shall we? It seems that there is a general consensus here on this matter. Don't forget that I said Public Breastfeeding doesn't bother me, I doubt it bothers alot of people.

If women get to topless, I will have an ever lasting erection. Which isn't necessarily bad, minus not being able to think coherently :p

If women get to topless, I will have an ever lasting erection. Which isn't necessarily bad, minus not being able to think coherently :p

if you have an erection for too long your penis will die and fall off.....proven fact.

Don't forget that I said Public Breastfeeding doesn't bother me, I doubt it bothers alot of people.

Ah yes, of course. :)

if you have an erection for too long your penis will die and fall off.....proven fact.

:eek:

:eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapism

Yes thats why they have the warning about the 4 hour erection on those male enhancement pills...and I wouldn't consider the entire face a sexual organ..the mouth however...

if you have an erection for too long your penis will die and fall off.....proven fact.

Joke break:
A guy wakes up one morning to see a green ring around Mr. Happy. concerned he goes to a doctor to get checked out.

In the waiting room is his best friend. they start chatting and the friend reveals that he woke up with a red ring around his member. so both men waited in worried silence.

The Doctor calls his friend in and couple of minutes later, he comes out all full of smiles. "Don't worry, the doc rubbed some solution on it and the red ring dissappeared."

Hearted by the news, the man went in when his name was called.

the doctor examined his member and said "Sorry, I'm afraid we have to amputate it."

"What?! But my friend said you put a solutin on and it went away!"

"Well," said the doc. "There's a big difference between Lipstick and Gangrene."

ok, back to the discussion.

Yes thats why they have the warning about the 4 hour erection on those male enhancement pills...and I wouldn't consider the entire face a sexual organ..the mouth however...

What about the nose? :p

What about the nose? :p

I guess if you're Jewish since they have those long big noses those could be a sexual organ too ;)...

Its a joke relax people...

What about the nose? :p

why? you Cyrano de Bergerac?

There's an aesthetic involved here. Of course everyone is all in favor of seeing healthy, fit young people topless (even bottomless, for that matter).
But the dismal fact is that most people aren't healthy, fit or young. Can you honestly think of anything more oppressive than having fat, saggy breasts hanging out or of seeing a fat, fish-belly white redneck with man-boobs strutting around, or a fat, pendulous African American? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll vote to cover the young and fit just so I won't go blind looking at the fat and not fit.

There's an aesthetic involved here. Of course everyone is all in favor of seeing healthy, fit young people topless (even bottomless, for that matter).
But the dismal fact is that most people aren't healthy, fit or young. Can you honestly think of anything more oppressive than having fat, saggy breasts hanging out or of seeing a fat, fish-belly white redneck with man-boobs strutting around, or a fat, pendulous African American? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll vote to cover the young and fit just so I won't go blind looking at the fat and not fit.

I think you picked the wrong word

I think you picked the wrong word

I certainly feel oppressed and mildly nauseated when I'm forced to either look at saggy, baggy, fish-belly white, pendulous, fat naked people or leave the area. And since I'm saggy, baggy, white, pendulous and fat, I can say this without fear of being considered hypocritical.

I think you picked the wrong word

No, I think fat man boobs are holding us down! Fight the MAN(boobs)!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapism

:eek:

*throws on monk robe and joins monastery*

Personally, I think Americans are bit hypocritical to say Muslims are bad to force women to wear veils when men don't have to, then oppress women their own way. Of course, this is just my point-of-view. How about everybody else?

Silly rabbit. It's only bad if 'they' do it. If 'we' do it, it's okay.

Oh, and we can probably mumble something about 'god made me do it', too.

As long as they dont whine about being stared at by creepy strangers when topless, because it will happen a lot.

It doesn't actually. The fetishisation of breasts seems to be limited to cultures in which they are taboo.

it's an interesting question regarding whether this is equal or not. On one hand there is the simple analysis of the fact that men can go without tops in many circumstances that women can not. This on its face appears unequal.

On the other hand, breasts in our society are viewed as sexual organs. And men are not allowed to walk with their sexual organs exposed in public, and neither are women.

It really depends on your position I suppose. One can argue that both men and women are prohibited from exposing their sexual organs in public, women just happen to have theirs in more numerous places.

Breasts are not primary sex organs. They aren't really considered sex organs at all, they are just fetishised.

There are many instances where breastfeeding mothers are forced to go elsewhere or "cover up".

In most of these instances, at least in Texas, the State has supported a mother's right to breast feed in public.

Silly rabbit. It's only bad if 'they' do it. If 'we' do it, it's okay.

Oh, and we can probably mumble something about 'god made me do it', too.

Right, I forgot it's "Mankind".

Right, I forgot it's "Mankind".

Best you never forget that again.

First things first, what reasons are there for opposing freedom of exposure of willies and vaginas which don't apply to b00bz?

First things first, what reasons are there for opposing freedom of exposure of willies and vaginas which don't apply to b00bz?

Technically I can't think of one. The reason you need? The former two are items required and interchanged during reproduction, the latter isn't.

First things first, what reasons are there for opposing freedom of exposure of willies and vaginas which don't apply to b00bz?

Another thing: what reasons apply to "willies and vagina[e]" which don't apply to one's face?

Technically I can't think of one.

Then why can't we run around naked?


The reason you need? The former two are items required and interchanged during reproduction, the latter isn't.

So?

Another thing: what reasons apply to "willies and vagina[e]" which don't apply to one's face?

I ask teh questions k thnx.

Then why can't we run around naked?



So?

Because we are always wearing our birthday suits.

'Cause we might accidentally reproduce.. I mean.. one false step and BAM!

Babies popping out all over the place, overpopulation in a matter of hours. No salvation.

None of those choices on the poll adequately represent my own views. Simply put, everybody has a right to wear whatever they want on their own property or on somebody else's property if the owner gives permission. I am for legalizing nudism, but I strongly support a property owner's right to refuse admission of anybody to their property, for any reason.

Ah, I just figured that the majority of 60 year olds, having been brought up and lived in a society with different values/standards, would opt not to go around with the top down.

Someone who is 60 now would have been a 22 year old hippie during Woodstock.

Someone who is 60 now would have been a 22 year old hippie during Woodstock.

You make a convincing and disturbing point.

First things first, what reasons are there for opposing freedom of exposure of willies and vaginas which don't apply to b00bz?

Because willies and vaginas are primary sex organs/characteristics, while breasts are not.

Because willies and vaginas are primary sex organs/characteristics, while breasts are not.

That still is not really a convincing reason. If people went around naked all the time, the eroticism of it would quickly evaporate.

That still is not really a convincing reason. If people went around naked all the time, the eroticism of it would quickly evaporate.

Ha! One look at me and you'll realize the only way it would vanish is if, by some strange chance, everyone was blinded by my overall handsome and rakish look.

I've pointed out already, breasts are only fetishised where they are taboo.

My intention was not to suggest otherwise. I just don't see why exposing sexual organs, primary or secondary, is likely to be much of a danger to society in any real sense.

That still is not really a convincing reason. If people went around naked all the time, the eroticism of it would quickly evaporate.

Eroticism is irrelevent to my response.

I've pointed out already, breasts are only fetishised where they are taboo. Like other secondary sexual characteristics. One doesn't have to go back too far to find western times where showing ankles was unacceptable.

There are many instances where breastfeeding mothers are forced to go elsewhere or "cover up".

Yeah, that's why they mase a NS issue about that.

Ha! One look at me and you'll realize the only way it would vanish is if, by some strange chance, everyone was blinded by my overall handsome and rakish look.

Or if we all dropped dead in horror. ;)

Because i feel embarressed because people will know my penis' size

No one said you had to go naked.

Then why can't we run around naked?



So?

Because i feel embarressed because people will know my penis' size

Or if we all dropped dead in horror. ;)



No one said you had to go naked.

But in nudist colonies, everyone is nudist, and then they'll make fun of me

Or if we all dropped dead in horror. ;)



No one said you had to go naked.

I'll admit, it is a possibility. With a 7/0 chance of occuring.

Aye, and I would probably keep wearing my clothes since I seem to have gotten used to them.

Aye, and I would probably keep wearing my clothes since I seem to have gotten used to them.

And hide your rakish handsomeness?

And hide your rakish handsomeness?

*When did I say I wasn't possessive?

*other than just now **when I said "I wasn't possessive" if you take it out of context.

**and then

Plus,k clothes have pockets. You can put thinks in pockets. If i was nude, where ould i keep my cell phone?

I can think of a few places, none of them comfortable.

Though I am sure they will adapt a cell phone case to hang on..er..whatever is available. No need to worry, they will most likely build an "economy" size too.

I'll admit, it is a possibility. With a 7/0 chance of occuring.

Aye, and I would probably keep wearing my clothes since I seem to have gotten used to them.

Plus,k clothes have pockets. You can put thinks in pockets. If i was nude, where ould i keep my cell phone?

*When did I say I wasn't possessive?

Narcissist.

i'm a guy... all i got is my ass, and i don't want a stinky cellular mobile device

and then there is your wallet

Unless I am some rare species of human, you must have lost something coming out of the womb.

I can think of a few places, none of them comfortable.

Though I am sure they will adapt a cell phone case to hang on..er..whatever is available. No need to worry, they will most likely build an "economy" size too.

i'm a guy... all i got is my ass, and i don't want a stinky cellular mobile device

and then there is your wallet

Unless I am some rare species of human, you must have lost something coming out of the womb.

my penis?

Using gender as a criteria for who can legally go topless seems injust. I suggest we decide based on % of body fat.

i'm a guy... all i got is my ass, and i don't want a stinky cellular mobile device

and then there is your wallet

all of the nudists I know have fanny packs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_pack

fanny packs are gay.

Real men don't wear fanny packs... when going nude, they put their things in their penises.

fanny packs are gay.

fanny packs are gay.

I think you're confusing fanny packs with packing fannies.

fanny packs are gay.

hip pouches have homosexual sex? what gender pray tell do they have the homosexual sex with?

First things first, what reasons are there for opposing freedom of exposure of willies and vaginas which don't apply to b00bz?

Health. Like it or not, genitalia and anuses necessarily and involuntarily emit potentially infectious and unsanitary substances. That presents a reasonably compelling reason to bar people from rubbing them on public seating by sitting around naked.

Boobs, on the other hand, do no such thing. There are, to my knowledge, no boob-borne diseases.

hip pouches have homosexual sex? what gender pray tell do they have the homosexual sex with?

Well, they're all named "Fanny," so I guess they must be female. That little coin pouch on the front? That's really a vagina. *nods*

... There are, to my knowledge, no boob-borne diseases.


Boobonic plague?

my penis?

Yes, that.

Boobonic plague?

Oh, geez, now I'm totally picturing some sort of medieval-Europe-themed lesbian porn movie. :p

Real men don't wear fanny packs... when going nude, they put their things in their penises.

In..? that would both be painful as well as medical risks...I for one have a no insert policy on all of my orifices..with the exceptions being for medical purposes only..example a catheter

Oh, geez, now I'm totally picturing some sort of medieval-Europe-themed lesbian porn movie. :p

We could film it in my backyard...use the sprinklers for rain...the woods have a olden day feel to them already

In..? that would both be painful as well as medical risks...

Real men don't care. Fanny packs are gay.

Real men don't care. Fanny packs are gay.

I don't wear fanny packs...thats what my pockets and wallet are for...i don't know any guys who stick things inside their penis though...

I don't wear fanny packs...thats what my pockets and wallet are for...

The discussion was about nudism, though.

i don't know any guys who stick things inside their penis though...

Nor do I. Clearly, we both hang around fake men.

(I do, of course, know guys who use fanny packs... as a matter of fact I do too sometimes. Only further proof that real masculinity is just getting rarer and rarer in these sissified days.)

The discussion was about nudism, though.



Nor do I. Clearly, we both hang around fake men.

(I do, of course, know guys who use fanny packs... as a matter of fact I do sometimes. Only further proof that real masculinity is just getting rarer and rarer in these sissified days.)

I don't think I've ever used a fanny pack.never had the need for one.everything I need fits into my wallet...with the exception of car keys which I have on a lanyard along with my Military ID card..

..except maybe when i was like 4 and went on a family trip to disney world...I think i mighta had one then to hold snacks...

Im confused as to the fuss and the premise of the poll seems flawed. I live in New York State. The last time i checked it was one of the largest states in the United States. New York State law says that anywhere a man may go topless, women may also. After this law was passed, the world continued to revolve normally, unsuprisingly no riots occurred and in fact its such a non issue most people in the State are not even aware nor for the most part even take advantage of the law.

Because we are always wearing our birthday suits.

'Cause we might accidentally reproduce.. I mean.. one false step and BAM!

Babies popping out all over the place, overpopulation in a matter of hours. No salvation.

I think sex requires more then a split-second.

:rolleyes:

I think sex requires more then a split-second.

:rolleyes:

For most. Bann-ed might be one of the unlucky hair trigger folks :p

Then why can't we run around naked?

The possibility that seeing an organ for a certain use, may draw attention to that use. In this case sex.

So?

"So?"???!! Women have to cover-up their chests, and in the Middle-East faces because perverts like you can't control thoughts about their fetishes.

I find a breastfeeding child to be a lot less messy and noisy than some people who eat out. Honesty, at least the child breastfeeds with its mouth closed.

Quoted. For. Truth.

And I hereby propose a law that enforces people to chew with their mouths closed!

Yes...When something remains hidden or half revealed it tends to get sexual connotations, for example breasts in Western society or faces in muslim society.

http://www.fashiongates.com/magazine/Nose-Plastic-Surgery-in-Iran-13-05-05-68051.html

Or ankles, in times gone by.

"So?"???!! Women have to cover-up their chests, and in the Middle-East faces because perverts like you can't control thoughts about their fetishes.

Yes...When something remains hidden or half revealed it tends to get sexual connotations, for example breasts in Western society or faces in muslim society.

http://www.fashiongates.com/magazine/Nose-Plastic-Surgery-in-Iran-13-05-05-68051.html

Using gender as a criteria for who can legally go topless seems injust. I suggest we decide based on % of body fat.

Sounds find by me. In fact, let's go one step further and make it mandatory for people who are above a certain % of body fat cannot wear tight or revealing clothing. They must cover it.

I ask teh questions k thnx.

I believe I opened with a statement which you still have not answered.

The debate roughly went thus:

Topfree side: Americans whine that Muslims are oppressive to force women to cover-up their face but not men. Yet Americans do the same thing, except with the chest.

Other-side: Well, everyone has a face. Only women have breasts. Ergo it's unique to their sex, and it's sexual.

TFS: Men have nipples too. Ergo it's not unique, and therefor not sexual.

OS: It's the fat deposits I refer to, which men do not have.

TFS: Strange. Then how come women can show cleavage, but nipples are considered indecent?

OS: Okay, never mind. New question: why should privates be covered-up, but not nipples? In other words, say why we must cover-up privates parts.

TFS: You'll have to give me a viable reason why they should be covered-up yourself.

I then received the idiotic statement which I quote at the top and bottom of this post.

I ask teh questions k thnx.

Sounds find by me. In fact, let's go one step further and make it mandatory for people who are above a certain % of body fat cannot wear tight or revealing clothing. They must cover it.

And I suppose unattractive/ugly people also have to wear veils.

And I suppose unattractive/ugly people also have to wear veils.

OR we could just let everyone show naked flesh and simply not look if we don't like what we see.

You knows, as in, nobody's holding our head in that particular direction, and nothing's keeping our eyelids forcibly open.

Just sayin'.

OR we could just let everyone show naked flesh and simply not look if we don't like what we see.

You knows, as in, nobody's holding our head in that particular direction, and nothing's keeping our eyelids forcibly open.

Just sayin'.

Walking? Walking is doing that, actually.

OR we could just let everyone show naked flesh and simply not look if we don't like what we see.

You knows, as in, nobody's holding our head in that particular direction, and nothing's keeping our eyelids forcibly open.

Just sayin'.

Oh, no. Firemen who get their face burned saving a life must cover their face. Or, and hair color we don't paticularly care for must be covered by a wig of the appropriate color, say, blonde.

Oh, no. Firemen who get their face burned saving a life must cover their face. Or, and hair color we don't paticularly care for must be covered by a wig of the appropriate color, say, blonde.

You're just being unreasonable now =P

Don't take those cute redheads away from me!

You're just being unreasonable now =P

Don't take those cute redheads away from me!

Red. Or whatever color the ruler fancies. After-all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And that beholder should be the ruler. How else do we decide?

Red. Or whatever color the ruler fancies. After-all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And that beholder should be the ruler. How else do we decide?

Democracy and constitutionally guaranteed equal rights for all?

Democracy and constitutionally guaranteed equal rights for all?

Vote for the hair color?

Naturally, you understand I have been using sarcasm.

Vote for the hair color?

Naturally, you understand I have been using sarcasm.

Of course. It was funnier to pretend not to notice and keep the joke rolling.

Still, however funny it might be arguing about only letting fit, healthy, sexy-looking people go topless, the fact remains that everyone should be granted equal rights. Ugly people can run around naked too, I don't care, nobody's forcing me to look at them.

Heck, currently males can go topless; I watch the sexy pecs and man-nipples, and I shut out the ugly manboobs from my mind. It's not that hard to do. Can't imagine everyone can't do as much, or couldn't do as much if females could go around topless too.

Of course. It was funnier to pretend not to notice and keep the joke rolling.

Still, however funny it might be arguing about only letting fit, healthy, sexy-looking people go topless, the fact remains that everyone should be granted equal rights. Ugly people can run around naked too, I don't care, nobody's forcing me to look at them.

Heck, currently males can go topless; I watch the sexy pecs and man-nipples, and I shut out the ugly manboobs from my mind. It's not that hard to do. Can't imagine everyone can't do as much, or couldn't do as much if females could go around topless too.

Correct. And if such effects were fully integrated into society then within weeks they would lose the ogle-value. When you see something rare as a common thing it surprises you. After you're used to it, things change.

The possibility that seeing an organ for a certain use, may draw attention to that use. In this case sex.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, are you saying that there will be an increase in rape? Or by drawing attention, do you just mean that people will stare and it will be awkward? In that case, how is that any different from boobs?


"So?"???!! Women have to cover-up their chests, and in the Middle-East faces because perverts like you can't control thoughts about their fetishes.

Read what you quoted, I was saying "so?" to the meaningless statement that those organs are used for sex, what exactly does that change? Bums are not a sexual organ, do you think people should be allowed to walk around with their bums hanging out?

And as to your reply, I think you are deluding yourself. The idea that the government has a sexist hidden agenda when banning exposure of breasts is just paranoid nonsense, it's nothing to do with the fact that the people who have breasts are women, and has everything to do with the fact that the breasts are breasts.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, are you saying that there will be an increase in rape? Or by drawing attention, do you just mean that people will stare and it will be awkward? In that case, how is that any different from boobs?

I do not believe nudity of itself would cause any problems after a few weeks of integration. I'm stating what I believe you think: that to view an organ required for sex leads to "naughty thoughts". "Awkwardness" is it's own concern, not the law's.

Read what you quoted, I was saying "so?" to the meaningless statement that those organs are used for sex, what exactly does that change? Bums are not a sexual organ, do you think people should be allowed to walk around with their bums hanging out?


The only reason there would be for restriction of "bums" is that they are unsanitary. That same cannot be said of breasts.

And as to your reply, I think you are deluding yourself. The idea that the government has a sexist hidden agenda when banning exposure of breasts is just paranoid nonsense, it's nothing to do with the fact that the people who have breasts are women, and has everything to do with the fact that the breasts are breasts.

I do not believe there is any "hidden agenda". I merely believe that Americans are unconscious hypocrites for their criticism of forced veils because they do the same thing (albeit, to a much lesser extent).

I do not believe nudity of itself would cause any problems after a few weeks of integration.

Then it's pointless debating whether breasts should be allowed to be seen in public or not, since you think people should be allowed to go nude in public anyway. It's like me debating immigration with an anarchist, who doesn't believe in borders in the first place.


The only reason there would be for restriction of "bums" is that they are unsanitary. That same cannot be said of breasts.


So are bare feet. I don't think that's a good enough reason.


I do not believe there is any "hidden agenda". I merely believe that Americans are unconscious hypocrites for their criticism of forced veils because they do the same thing (albeit, to a much lesser extent).

They would be hypocrites if they were doing it for sexist reasons consciously, but they're not. Unlike the Muslims, who are doing it for sexist reasons, or at least the teachings they are devoted to which are sexist.

Then it's pointless debating whether breasts should be allowed to be seen in public or not, since you think people should be allowed to go nude in public anyway. It's like me debating immigration with an anarchist, who doesn't believe in borders in the first place.

Not entirely. I can see the point of people being forced to shroud their loins, I just don't agree with it. However, not only do I not agree with women being forced to wear tops, I can't see point in it. So I'm not you asking to argue against total nudity, of which the arguments are quite clear. I'm merely debating tops.


So are bare feet. I don't think that's a good enough reason.

I believe that the anal orifice is considerably less sanitary then feet. They generally do not let you walk barefoot in restaurants and such, so sanitary is actually a fine reason.

They would be hypocrites if they were doing it for sexist reasons consciously, but they're not. Unlike the Muslims, who are doing it for sexist reasons, or at least the teachings they are devoted to which are sexist.

Haha. I've heard NS'ers who are Muslims say veils are not sexist at all, but merely a part of the female attire.
As for covering-up breasts: the law traces-back to a sexist time. It is a left-over from periods of oppression. The navel is not longer considered bad for the woman to show, but it used to be.

So are bare feet. I don't think that's a good enough reason.


Bare feet are not nearly as unsanitary as anuses and genitalia. A fair number of extremely unpleasant diseases would become significantly more prevalent if people were permitted to rub traces of their fecal matter on the seats in restaurants, for example. It's really not a good idea. I don't see anything wrong with nudity in and of itself, but there is actually a compelling and reasonable argument for banning bare bottoms in public places. Not so much for breasts, as I already explained.

And as to your reply, I think you are deluding yourself. The idea that the government has a sexist hidden agenda when banning exposure of breasts is just paranoid nonsense, it's nothing to do with the fact that the people who have breasts are women, and has everything to do with the fact that the breasts are breasts.

But there are no laws requiring breasts to be covered - at least not in most of the country. What has to be covered are a woman's nipples. Her entire breast can be showing as long as the nipple is covered. Men and women both have nipples, but only women are required to cover them up.

I think sex requires more then a split-second.

:rolleyes:

I guess you missed the fact that I was joking. :p

For most. Bann-ed might be one of the unlucky hair trigger folks :p

4,000 rounds a minute. *nods*

But there are no laws requiring breasts to be covered - at least not in most of the country. What has to be covered are a woman's nipples. Her entire breast can be showing as long as the nipple is covered. Men and women both have nipples, but only women are required to cover them up.

Yes, thank you. I have mentioned that to this arrogant moon-calf, but it fails to notice.

Bums are not a sexual organ, do you think people should be allowed to walk around with their bums hanging out?


Another thing: men and women both have to cover their "bums", unlike nipples.

Yes, thank you. I have mentioned that to this arrogant moon-calf, but it fails to notice.

Now now, be nice.

Now now, be nice.

*GRRRR* What does it matter? The Churlish lumpkin cannot differentiate formality from insult.

Ill try once more. NY STATE is one of the LARGEST STATES in the Union and has topless laws that allow women to be topless anywhere a man can be and NOTHING bad happens EVER. Why do we still need to talk about this?

Another thing: men and women both have to cover their "bums", unlike nipples.

that one should be the reverse of the nipple rule..who the hell wants to look at a man's ass?

Edit:Nevermind don't answer that..I hath opened a whole new can of worms...at least I won't be here for 12 weeks to read about it and by then the thread will have died

If toplessness for women was legalized, do people realize how quickly the number of sexual harassment lawsuits would go straight through the roof?

Seriously...think of all the freshman-year fratboys. They get into enough legal trouble as it is...why add fuel to the fire? ;)

Ill try once more. NY STATE is one of the LARGEST STATES in the Union and has topless laws that allow women to be topless anywhere a man can be and NOTHING bad happens EVER. Why do we still need to talk about this?

Hydesland.

If toplessness for women was legalized, do people realize how quickly the number of sexual harassment lawsuits would go straight through the roof?

Seriously...think of all the freshman-year fratboys. They get into enough legal trouble as it is...why add fuel to the fire? ;)
So, because some young men choose not to behave themselves, women should be denied legal equality?

Forgive me for not having much sympathy for those "freshman-year fratboys." The sooner their learn some self-control, the better. Why should their female peers be forced to take responsibility for the behavior of the males?

But there are no laws requiring breasts to be covered - at least not in most of the country. What has to be covered are a woman's nipples. Her entire breast can be showing as long as the nipple is covered. Men and women both have nipples, but only women are required to cover them up.

It's because women's nipples would sputter sulfuric acid at innocent children if they weren't covered up.

It's because women's nipples would sputter sulfuric acid at innocent children if they weren't covered up.

Really?

That's a big risk.

We should still allow women to go topless, I think, but some brave, selfless soul should risk-test their nipples....

Really?

That's a big risk.

We should still allow women to go topless, I think, but some brave, selfless soul should risk-test their nipples....

*sigh*

I volunteer for this task. but to make sure, I'll have to test all the women's nipples.

*sigh*

I volunteer for this task. but to make sure, I'll have to test all the women's nipples.

Well, obviously. Your statistics would be useless without comparison, right?

be honest... you just want to see more topless women

be honest... you just want to see more topless women

Hardly. Who would want to see topless 60-year-olds? I'm guessing you also think women are allowed to wear trousers as opposed to dresses because men want to see more form. Or that women are allowed to speak before a man does only because we all are turned on by their voice.

You disgust me.

*sigh*

I volunteer for this task. but to make sure, I'll have to test all the women's nipples.

Oh look, there's some 90 y.o. granny over there... she's walking your direction... :p

be honest... you just want to see more topless women

Nope. I'm a gay man, so I really couldn't care less about woman's boobs. I'm in this for the equality issue, really. It's stupid that I can mow the lawn with my shirt off in the summer, and that my sister/female friends/female neighbours can't do the same.

Oh look, there's some 90 y.o. granny over there... she's walking your direction... :p

let's perform the test then.

*Grabs and throws Pezalia onto topless 90 y.o. granny*

nope, no acid shooting out. so that appears to be safe... :p

Nope. I'm a gay man, so I really couldn't care less about woman's boobs. I'm in this for the equality issue, really. It's stupid that I can mow the lawn with my shirt off in the summer, and that my sister/female friends/female neighbours can't do the same.

Stand aside! This fool impugns my sincerity...and worse, by doing so he maims my vanity!