NationStates Jolt Archive

Decades after some women cast aside their bras as an act of feminist radicalism, a group of Swedish women have launched a campaign to go topless in local swimming pools.

The Bara Brost (Bare Breast) campaign began two months ago in the south of the country, one of the campaigners, Astrid Hellroth, told AFP.

Already about 50 women supported the campaign, she said, and a vanguard of 15 women had started direct action, swimming topless in local pools.

"Our aim is to start a debate about the unwritten social and cultural rules that sexualize and discriminate against the female body," said Hellroth, a 21-year-old student.

They also had a blog, she added: barabrost.blogg.se. Their site links to a Canadian sister organisation, the Topfree Equal Rights Association.

"It's important that women have the same rights as men," said another campaigner, 22-year-old Ragnhild Karlsson.


(link (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=071113220825.er3h5k8g&cat=null))

This thread is useless without pics.

Pics or it didn't happen.

No pics in the article, sorry. :(

tits or gtfo

tits or gtfo

*bears bare chest*
Aha! I am welcomed to this thread.

*looks around*
No pics...

Erm, they make a fair enough point. Not that you would, but IIRC you can go topless on Swedish beaches and I don't really see any difference between swimming in the sea topless and swimming in a pool topless.

*edits*

Found a Swedish article on the matter with THEIR BOOBS OUT OMFG! http://www.rfsu.se/ny_vag_av_bara_brost-aktioner__.asp (Hormonal males after this post warning)

I'll bet many men will be closely watching this.

At least they can draw attention to their cause.

(link (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=071113220825.er3h5k8g&cat=null))

I'll bet many men will be closely watching this.

RELEASE THOSE TWINS!!! :D

lolz the first four replies are asking for pics...

Pics or it didn't happen.

Go to their blog site.

I like this thread. :)

At least they can draw attention to their cause.

*wonders if the numbers would increase when the weather turns cold.*

I'll bet many men will be closely watching this.

At least they can draw attention to their cause.

Sounds like a great idea. Keep us abreast of the situation if you could.

Oh, gawd. :D

Anyway want to actually discuss their noble cause? :p

Sounds like a great idea. Keep us abreast of the situation if you could.

Isn't Sweden, like, the last place anybody of any gender would WANT to go topless? Isn't it, like, really cold there, like?

For.

(and where's the @#$% poll?)

Isn't Sweden, like, the last place anybody of any gender would WANT to go topless? Isn't it, like, really cold there, like?

Like totally.

Isn't Sweden, like, the last place anybody of any gender would WANT to go topless? Isn't it, like, really cold there, like?

At this time of year, presumably. When I was there in July once, the weather was lovely. Warm and sunny. That was in Stockholm, though, in the south of the country.

(link (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=071113220825.er3h5k8g&cat=null))

Good for them.

For.

(and where's the @#$% poll?)

A poll? Why would anybody be against this? Doesn't everyone agree there should be total gender equality in baring one's top at the pool? :p

http://www.tera.ca/Images/disgusting.gif

Isn't Sweden, like, the last place anybody of any gender would WANT to go topless? Isn't it, like, really cold there, like?

Not particularly, since there's this thing called the North Atlantic Current, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current) which proper geography schooling should have taught you about.

Additionally, these women are campaigning for going topless in indoor pools. They can already go topless at beaches without any fuss, and Sweden has quite temperate summers - it's not called "The Land of the Midnight Sun" for nothing.

Not particularly, since there's this thing called the North Atlantic Current, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current) which proper geography schooling should have taught you about.

Any need for a flame there?

First, LOL at the first couple posts...you horny losers! :D

Second...I'm sure this will titilate the general populace. I'll be watching with eagle-like eyes to make sure their cause stays firm and neither sags nor sways! Though things may perk up as the deep winter months roll in....

Second...I'm sure this will titilate the general populace.
Not really, no.

Any need for a flame there?

You deem that a flame? :rolleyes: Look into getting some skin transplants, seriously.

You deem that a flame? :rolleyes: Look into getting some skin transplants, seriously.

Why? I'm a believer in civility, and I doubt that replacing my skin would improve your hostile attitude any.

Exactly what "hygiene issues" are they talking about, I wonder?

Exactly what "hygiene issues" are they talking about, I wonder?

Didn't you hear? Breasts are actually made out of Ebola.

Not really, no.
1. You're not "the general populace".

2. Anyone who is "the general populace" DO NOT come and correct me!:p

(ich bin immer korrekt! ich hab gedacht du weißt das schon);)

Why? I'm a believer in civility, and I doubt that replacing my skin would improve your hostile attitude any.

Not replacing, but actually giving you some skin, since yours seems to be so thin that it's virtually non-existent. So either buy some or grow some, otherwise you'll be expelling melodramatic cries of "oh, the vapours!" annoyingly often if you deem something like that "hostile" and "a flame", I'd wager.

Not replacing, but actually giving you some skin, since yours seems to be so thin that it's virtually non-existent. So either buy some or grow some, otherwise you'll be expelling melodramatic cries of "oh, the vapours!" annoyingly often if you deem something like that "hostile" and "a flame", I'd wager.

That's... great, and all, but you never did actually answer my question though (i.e. why was it necessary).

Exactly what "hygiene issues" are they talking about, I wonder?

Spontaneous lactating. It makes a mess of the water. *nods*

More seriously, good on them, I suppose. There's no real reason why a woman shouldn't be able to be as topless as a man in an indoors pool.

It'll make the women who want to be topless happy. It'll make the men who enjoy seeing topless women happy. Everyone wins. (Except "moral values" religious conservatives, presumably, but making them angry is just an added bonus.)

That's... great, and all, but you never did actually answer my question though (i.e. why was it necessary).

Your question was so dumb it merited no actual response, as that would have dignified its labelling of that comment as a "flame". So, I commented on your alarmingly thin skin, which is your problem and not mine. Be gracious and grateful now for having been made aware of it.

It'll make the women who want to be topless happy. It'll make the men who enjoy seeing topless women happy. Everyone wins. (Except "moral values" religious conservatives, presumably, but making them angry is just an added bonus.)

Next step: making this mandatory! ;)

(incidentally, Fassitude, there's no call to be rude, so it would nice if you stopped being rude)

Can someone explain to me what this issue has to do with feminism and gender equality? I don't really know the statistics but I always thought that it's other women who are against this and not men.

Your question was so dumb it merited no actual response, as that would have dignified its labelling of that comment as a "flame". So, I commented on your alarmingly thin skin, which is your problem and not mine. Be gracious and grateful now for having been made aware of it.

My ma has insulted me worse than that :eek:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I won't be taking it under advisement, and in the future you should recall that there is no call for inconsequential and misdirected admonishments, so it would be nice if you kept them to yourself. All right? Peachy and dandy.

...okay, don't take things personally...

Anyway, let's get back on topic. There's no need for this.

(incidentally, Fassitude, there's no call to be rude, so it would nice if you stopped being rude)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I won't be taking it under advisement, and in the future you should recall that there is no call for inconsequential and misdirected admonishments, so it would be nice if you kept them to yourself. All right? Peachy and dandy.

Any need for a flame there?

That wasn't a flame.

For Fass, it was rather chummy-sounding. :p

My ma has insulted me worse than that :eek:

I should hope so, since it would speak very poorly for her insult prowess if she could not top something that isn't an insult.

Fass, show us your Swedish breasts or I will inundate you with inconsequential and misdirected admonishments.

I support these women in this, and they can count on my support, because I will lift their spirits up and separate them from the religious nuts who want to keep their beautiful bodies under wraps.

I support these women in this, and they can count on my support, because I will lift their spirits up and separate them from the religious nuts who want to keep their beautiful bodies under wraps.

That is a very subjective matter.

It'll make the women who want to be topless happy. It'll make the men who enjoy seeing topless women happy. Everyone wins. (Except "moral values" religious conservatives, presumably, but making them angry is just an added bonus.)Does Sweden have many of those? I always assumed that a place as liberal and secular as Sweden wouldn't have religious idiots as any powerful political force, but I'm not sure.

where are all the women in this thread?

That is a very subjective matter.

*slaps the back of head*

A breast is a breast dude.

*slaps the back of head*

A breast is a breast dude.

*ducks*

*takes off shirt*

You just keep telling yourself that.

Fass, show us your Swedish breasts or I will inundate you with inconsequential and misdirected admonishments.

Alright, but just for you Gartref:

http://i10.tinypic.com/7xxkm6f.jpg

*slaps the back of head*

A breast is a breast dude.
You're either:
A) Desperate, or
B) Extremely sheltered.
We don't live in some sort of horny male fantasy world where every woman is sexy, nor do we live in some sort of stupid hippy fantasy world where every body is beautiful. This is the real world, filled with tits that sag down to people's belly buttons, medical scarring and the astoundingly obese.

You're either:
A) Desperate, or
B) Extremely sheltered.
We don't live in some sort of horny male fantasy world where every woman is sexy, nor do we live in some sort of stupid hippy fantasy world where every body is beautiful. This is the real world, filled with tits that sag down to people's belly buttons, medical scarring and the astoundingly obese.

QFT
...it is a sad reality we live in.:(

I fully support this, as long as it spreads to the general Stockholm area. :)

We don't live in some sort of horny male fantasy world where every woman is sexy, nor do we live in some sort of stupid hippy fantasy world where every body is beautiful. This is the real world, filled with tits that sag down to people's belly buttons, medical scarring and the astoundingly obese.

I didn't see many of those in Sweden, actually.

I didn't see many of those in Sweden, actually.
I didn't say there were many of any specific type, I just said that, in any population, there are many people who should not be naked. So it is better for everyone that a certain minimum level of clothing be enforced.
If that means that Wilgrove will have to wait until he gets to the privacy of his own home and internet connection to be titillated, I'm fine with that, and if it means that a bunch of misguided feminists and nudists are going to whine about patriarchy, I'm fine with that too.
(Although, to be honest, I wouldn't be entirely against man-bras being legislated in some circumstances).

(link (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=071113220825.er3h5k8g&cat=null))

This I have got to see.

I didn't see many of those in Sweden, actually.

Especially in Stockholm.....

(link (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=071113220825.er3h5k8g&cat=null))

w00t

Oh, gawd. :D

Anyway want to actually discuss their noble cause? :p

*mumbles something about self-determination and liberty*

Also tits

Sounds like a great idea. Keep us abreast of the situation if you could.

You win the internet.

Alright, but just for you Gartref:

-snip-


Pretty good but I prefer...

http://www.siberianlight.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/putin-man-boobs-fishing.jpg

Proof of topless swedish women in my TG, or GTFO. kthxbai.:p

I support these women in this, and they can count on my support, because I will lift their spirits up and separate them from the religious nuts who want to keep their beautiful bodies under wraps.

Amen to that, Wilgrove.

Alright, but just for you Gartref:

http://i10.tinypic.com/7xxkm6f.jpg


Oh sweet man tit!

Pretty good but I prefer...

http://www.siberianlight.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/putin-man-boobs-fishing.jpg

Ugh, past middle age, flabby white men? Whatever floats your sick boat.

Ugh, past middle age, flabby white men? Whatever floats your sick boat.

That is a picture of Gartref himself.

He didn't want to be outdone.

*nods*

Ugh, past middle age, flabby white men? Whatever floats your sick boat.


Yeah... but those are KGB abs.

Yeah... but those are KGB abs.

More like KFC flabs.

More like KFC flabs.

Yeah.. well... they're covert abs.

Yeah.. well... they're covert abs.

*chuckle*
:p

Sweden is wasted on Fass. :P

Not particularly, since there's this thing called the North Atlantic Current, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current) which proper geography schooling should have taught you about.

Additionally, these women are campaigning for going topless in indoor pools. They can already go topless at beaches without any fuss, and Sweden has quite temperate summers - it's not called "The Land of the Midnight Sun" for nothing.

Except that the moniker "Land of the Midnight Sun" has little to do with the quality if the Swedish summer and everything to do with the visibility of the sun for the full 24 hours during 1-6 days that generally occurs around the summer solstice.

In point of fact, the phenomenon of the midnight sun can be experienced anywhere north of the arctic circle or south of the antarctic circle, and the duration of the effect increases as one approaches the north and south poles.

Bill Nye, that you?

these women have my full an udivided attention. Yay for Boobies!

where are all the women in this thread?*waves* Hi!

Heh I think that the fact that this thread has gone on for four pages and seems full of men going 'Cor Tits!' shows what a rubbish idea this is.

Do feminist women really want to be able to get out what are clearly seen by males as sex organs, out in public? For what? How does this promote sexual equality? I don't think it does, and should be treated the same as if it was a bunch of blokes wanting to walk around with their knobs out, for the sake of equality.

Heh I think that the fact that this thread has gone on for four pages and seems full of men going 'Cor Tits!' shows what a rubbish idea this is.

Do feminist women really want to be able to get out what are clearly seen by males as sex organs, out in public?

Yes. Feminists tend to think that the female body shouldn't be controlled or confined based on what men think of as "sexy." If men think my tits are sex organs then they can have that opinion, but they can also behave themselves like grown ups.


For what?

Hiding the tits obviously hasn't prevented them from being sexualized, as this thread establishes. As a feminist woman, I'm rather tired of being told that I'm responsible for controlling male behavior and that I must cover (or reveal) my body based on how men will respond.

If a man cannot behave himself around a topless woman, he should be removed from the pool area. The woman should not be required to restrict herself just because a man is unable to show basic self control.


How does this promote sexual equality?

Men are allowed to go topless. Women are not. This is an example of sexism.

If we wanted equality between the sexes, we would need a situation in which both men and women have equal freedom to bare their chests. Personally, I don't see any reason why women shouldn't have the freedom to be bare chested in the same situations men are permitted to be bare chested. The only reason presented so far is that men will behave badly, but to me that's just a reason to prohibit those men from using pool facilities.


I don't think it does, and should be treated the same as if it was a bunch of blokes wanting to walk around with their knobs out, for the sake of equality.
Except it's not the same, because women also have genitals, and nobody is suggesting that women be permitted to expose their genitals.

We don't live in some sort of horny male fantasy world where every woman is sexy, nor do we live in some sort of stupid hippy fantasy world where every body is beautiful. This is the real world, filled with tits that sag down to people's belly buttons, medical scarring and the astoundingly obese.
Who cares?

Why do you need every single human body to be sexually appealing to you? Why do you think that anybody who isn't sexually appealing to you should have to hide their body or wear clothing they don't want to wear, just to spare your poor tender eyes?

Sheesh, some people are just way too high-strung. Maybe it's because I'm a city kid, but I'm used to being around lots of people all the time, and I'm not bothered by the fact that some of them are physically unattractive to me. Of course, I'm also over the age of 14, and I'm aware that the world does not revolve around my sex drive.

Yes. Feminists tend to think that the female body shouldn't be controlled or confined based on what men think of as "sexy." If men think my tits are sex organs then they can have that opinion, but they can also shut the fuck up and behave themselves like grown ups.

Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?


Hiding the tits obviously hasn't prevented them from being sexualized, as this thread establishes. As a feminist woman, I'm rather tired of being told that I'm responsible for controlling male behavior and that I must cover (or reveal) my body based on how men will respond.

Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?


If a man cannot behave himself around a topless woman, he should be removed from the pool area. The woman should not be required to restrict herself just because a man is unable to show basic self control.

And what would you say about the way a man would behave around a bottomless woman?


Men are allowed to go topless. Women are not. This is an example of sexism.

Rubbish! If woman want to walk around topless by all means let them, but they will be started at by horny men, they will be followed around, they will be chatted up, and a whole swathe of men, will more than likely look at them as 'easy'. The bottom line is that the female breast is considered as a sexual organ by men, we get turned on by them. This is not an indication of a lack of control, it is a natural urge and one that I'm sure has been around since we have.



If we wanted equality between the sexes, we would need a situation in which both men and women have equal freedom to bare their chests. Personally, I don't see any reason why women shouldn't have the freedom to be bare chested in the same situations men are permitted to be bare chested. The only reason presented so far is that men will behave badly, but to me that's just a reason to prohibit those men from using pool facilities.

So you would then be an advocate for both men and women to walk naked from the waist down?


Except it's not the same, because women also have genitals, and nobody is suggesting that women be permitted to expose their genitals.

And that is the whole point, there are reasons why the majority of adults do not wish to walk around showing their genitals, and these reason are also applicable in this situation.

You may well say that your breasts are not sexual organs, indeed you may not view them as such, but they are.

Would it be any different than me declaring that I am fed up with my penis being seen as a sexual organ by woman, and intend to go around with it hanging out of my strides as a protests against this shocking sexual discrimination?

You may well say that your breasts are not sexual organs, indeed you may not view them as such, but they are.

Would it be any different than me declaring that I am fed up with my penis being seen as a sexual organ by woman, and intend to go around with it hanging out of my strides as a protests against this shocking sexual discrimination?

Um, no.

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

A sex organ, or primary sexual characteristic, as narrowly defined, is any of those anatomical parts of the body which are involved in sexual reproduction and constitute the reproductive system in a complex organism; in mammals, these are:

Female: Bartholin's glands, cervix, clitoris, Fallopian tubes, labia, ovaries, Skene's gland, uterus, vagina, vulva

Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?

Personally, I wouldn't even choose to go topless most of the time. I would be fine with nude sunbathing or swimming in the summer, though.


Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?

You keep asking this, as if it's some kind of trump card. Perhaps you have completely missed my point.

I believe that women should not feel compelled to cover their bodies to control male behavior. There are plenty of other reasons why women might choose to cover their bodies, and that's perfectly fine...we have clothing for functional reasons, you know. What I'm objecting to is the argument that the bad behavior of some titty-obsessed blokes is some kind of justification for penalizing women.


And what would you say about the way a man would behave around a bottomless woman?

Are you actually suggesting that how well you behave toward another person should be based on how much clothing they have on?

So, if a woman is fully covered in a suit, you will be respectful and polite. What if she removes her jacket? Will you become 5% less respectful? What if she bares her ankle? Another 10%? What if a woman is in a bikini? Are you now only 15% respectful, but your respect level would increase if she'd wrap her beach towel around herself?

I don't treat people like shit simply because they're wearing a swim suit. Why would I suddenly start treating them like shit if they removed the top part of their swim suit?


Rubbish! If woman want to walk around topless by all means let them, but they will be started at by horny men, they will be followed around, they will be chatted up, and a whole swathe of men, will more than likely look at them as 'easy'.

And if men behave inappropriately, it is the fault of the men. Men can control themselves.


The bottom line is that the female breast is considered as a sexual organ by men, we get turned on by them. This is not an indication of a lack of control, it is a natural urge and one that I'm sure has been around since we have.

Again, you appear to have missed my point.

I don't care if you are "turned on" by breasts. You can think and feel whatever you want. But you still get to behave yourself, just like any adult is expected to do. You aren't allowed to harass or attack somebody else just because you find her body attractive. If you choose to act like an asshole, the problem is with you.


So you would then be an advocate for both men and women to walk naked from the waist down?

Again you miss the point.

I am an advocate for people wearing what they choose to wear, based on their personal comfort and the functional needs of their situation. I don't believe anybody, male or female, should be shamed or threatened into wearing or not wearing something. And I absolutely don't think that you get to blame somebody else's clothing if you choose to harass them, assault them, or harm them. Their clothing didn't make you do squat.


And that is the whole point, there are reasons why the majority of adults do not wish to walk around showing their genitals, and these reason are also applicable in this situation.

You may well say that your breasts are not sexual organs, indeed you may not view them as such, but they are.

You don't seem to get it. I don't care if my breasts are sexual organs or not. I don't care if you see them as sexual organs or not. Your sexual arousal doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe that your sexual arousal is a free pass for you to mistreat me. I expect you to behave yourself, even if my shamelessly bared ankle makes you think lusty thoughts.


Would it be any different than me declaring that I am fed up with my penis being seen as a sexual organ by woman, and intend to go around with it hanging out of my strides as a protests against this shocking sexual discrimination?
I think I've already answered this one.

Um, no.

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

Ohh way then that is it then, I have completely changed my mind, thank you, and thank you wiki!:D

I once worked with a couple of Aussies, just over here for a year or two, making cash to take home. I got an invite once to see an Aussie rules footie match with them.

It was a bloody good day, the beer was flowing, both teams supporters mingled freely and with out any problems, the match was exciting and my first taste of a new sport was bloomin' great. A lot of the girls with us, where cooing over the tight, and I mean tight shorts that the male players wore.

Comments about strong thighs and tight man bottoms abounded. It is correct to say then that these woman, viewed these thighs and arses in a sexual manor, making them organs of sexual attraction. It is this that I mean, but shit be pedantic, hehe I am!

Let me present a counter example.

A friend of mine recently got back from a tour in Iraq. One of his comrades was seriously injured, losing one limb and receiving some pretty nasty scarring on his face and upper torso. I will admit that my first reaction when I saw him was shock and revulsion. It was a pure gut response, an instinctive "yuck" impulse.

Let's say you're out in public, perhaps sitting by the pool, and this injured soldier sits down near by.

Do you stare rudely at him, even after he catches your eye and lets you know that he sees you staring? Do you loudly comment on how ugly he is to you, and how much you wish you didn't have to see his ugly body? Do you make barfing noises as he passes by? Do you approach him and tell him how ugly he is, and suggest that he cover himself to avoid bothering other people?

Somehow I doubt it.

You'd probably have the same gut reaction I did. You might stare for a moment, because his appearance is a bit shocking, but then you'd stop staring because you know it's rude. You wouldn't harass or insult him. You wouldn't make barfing noises or be obnoxious in other ways simply because your gut reaction was to be grossed out.

This is because you are capable of controlling yourself. You can have feelings and impulses you don't act upon.

So why, if a woman bares her chest, do you think that your impulse of "Ooh, boobies!" means that you get to stare at her rudely, even after she has made it clear she doesn't appreciate that? Why do you think your personal feelings about her boobs give you the right to hoot at her, or harass her, or even approach her and tell her to cover up?

You can control yourself. You can behave. You can be respectful. If you choose not to do these things, the problem is with YOU.

Ohh way then that is it then, I have completely changed my mind, thank you, and thank you wiki!:D

I once worked with a couple of Aussies, just over here for a year or two, making cash to take home. I got an invite once to see an Aussie rules footie match with them.

It was a bloody good day, the beer was flowing, both teams supporters mingled freely and with out any problems, the match was exciting and my first taste of a new sport was bloomin' great. A lot of the girls with us, where cooing over the tight, and I mean tight shorts that the male players wore.

Comments about strong thighs and tight man bottoms abounded. It is correct to say then that these woman, viewed these thighs and arses in a sexual manor, making them organs of sexual attraction. It is this that I mean, but shit be pedantic, hehe I am!

Well, then if this is the case, there is clearly a large difference nonetheless between an organ which is an object of sexual attraction and an actual sex organ.

As you say yourself, thighs, or more generally, legs, are also objects of sexual attraction. Perhaps it is silly for women and men to walk around with legs uncovered in public. Hell, the face is also an object of sexual attraction. The logical conclusion of this is that it is most sensible for everyone to wear burqas.

I believe that women should not feel compelled to cover their bodies to control male behavior. There are plenty of other reasons why women might choose to cover their bodies, and that's perfectly fine...we have clothing for functional reasons, you know. What I'm objecting to is the argument that the bad behavior of some titty-obsessed blokes is some kind of justification for penalizing women.

Now you know I don't think you are getting my point. Do you feel compelled to keep the bottom half of your body covered when out and about in public?

If you do, is it because of male behavior, or another reason?

Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?


i hate to be an anatomy nazi but this is a very creepy question.

do you know what a vagina IS? if a woman was walking around with her vagina out, it would not be fine. it would be some kind of medical emergency.

As you say yourself, thighs, or more generally, legs, are also objects of sexual attraction. Perhaps it is silly for women and men to walk around with legs uncovered in public. Hell, the face is also an object of sexual attraction. The logical conclusion of this is that it is most sensible for everyone to wear burqas.
It's so funny to hear people like Peep talking as if covering the female body actually prevents harassment, too.

It doesn't. I've been harassed while walking around in sweats. I've been harassed while wearing a thick winter coat and a stocking cap. Guys who feel like harassing women do it no matter what the women are wearing.

They'll always have some reason why it's the woman's fault, too. "She shouldn't have been walking alone!" "She shouldn't have been wearing those jeans!" "She shouldn't have looked at me with that flirty look!" "She shouldn't have been wearing make-up like that!"

Meh. I'm going to be harassed by jerks no matter what I wear, so I figure I might as well wear what I like. If the jerks choose to cross the line, they can go to jail. My clothing is not responsible for anybody else's behavior.

Now you know I don't think you are getting my point. Do you feel compelled to keep the bottom half of your body covered when out and about in public?

I prefer to wear t-shirts and jeans. I don't know that I would rate this as a "compulsion," though.


If you do, is it because of male behavior, or another reason?
Where I live, it would be illegal for me to walk around outside with the bottom half of my body nude. It's also rather cold for that. I'd prefer not to go to jail or freeze my clit off.

Well, then if this is the case, there is clearly a large difference nonetheless between an organ which is an object of sexual attraction and an actual sex organ.

As you say yourself, thighs, or more generally, legs, are also objects of sexual attraction. Perhaps it is silly for women and men to walk around with legs uncovered in public. Hell, the face is also an object of sexual attraction. The logical conclusion of this is that it is most sensible for everyone to wear burqas.


Then I'll ask you the same as I asked Bottle. Do you walk around in public with nothing covering you from the waist down? What are your reasons for whatever answer you give?

I prefer to wear t-shirts and jeans. I don't know that I would rate this as a "compulsion," though.


Where I live, it would be illegal for me to walk around outside with the bottom half of my body nude. It's also rather cold for that. I'd prefer not to go to jail or freeze my clit off.

Yeah but you are avoiding answering the question really. Lets try it then this way. If it was not illegal and it was tropically warm, then would you do it? Why, why not?

i hate to be an anatomy nazi but this is a very creepy question.

do you know what a vagina IS? if a woman was walking around with her vagina out, it would not be fine. it would be some kind of medical emergency.

Heh I see all of the pedants are joining in now! Out as in out side of clothing, rather than inside.

Yeah but you are avoiding answering the question really. Lets try it then this way. If it was not illegal and it was tropically warm, then would you do it? Why, why not?
Sure. During the summer I generally laze around the house in the nude. At my parents' house I sunbathe nude on the back porch because it's enclosed (and therefore the neighbors won't call the cops at me for exposing their two small children to my sinful female form :D).

I wouldn't go to work naked, for safety reasons, and I'd wear clothing for things like running errands because I like to have pockets and I prefer to have tit support if I'm going to be running around. I'd also wear clothing in many public venues out of respect for public health concerns.

Now, if you're done visualizing my nubile flesh, could we please get back to the point?

I've already specifically stated, several times, that there are plenty of good reasons for people to wear clothing. I've specifically stated that I believe "BUT TEH MENZ GET HORNY!!" is not a good reason to make it illegal for women to choose how they clothe themselves. That doesn't meant there aren't other good reasons.

It's so funny to hear people like Peep talking as if covering the female body actually prevents harassment, too.

Hah it's also funny watching people try to pretend I said something that I clearly didn't.:p

Hah it's also funny watching people try to pretend I said something that I clearly didn't.:p
Peep sez:

"If woman want to walk around topless by all means let them, but they will be started at by horny men, they will be followed around, they will be chatted up, and a whole swathe of men, will more than likely look at them as 'easy'."

All of which happens anyway. You say this will all happen "IF women want to walk around topless." But there's no "if." It happens anyhow. So women are going to face that treatment no matter what, and therefore your entire statement is irrelevant.

Peep sez:

"The bottom line is that the female breast is considered as a sexual organ by men, we get turned on by them. This is not an indication of a lack of control, it is a natural urge and one that I'm sure has been around since we have."

Which is only relevant to this discussion if you think that having these urges is justification for bad behavior.

Try again.

Now, if you're done visualizing my nubile flesh, could we please get back to the point?

>.>
<.<
Hang on......

Then I'll ask you the same as I asked Bottle. Do you walk around in public with nothing covering you from the waist down? What are your reasons for whatever answer you give?

No, for much the same reasons as Bottle plus privacy.

Sure. During the summer I generally laze around the house in the nude. At my parents' house I sunbathe nude on the back porch because it's enclosed (and therefore the neighbors won't call the cops at me for exposing their two small children to my sinful female form :D).

I wouldn't go to work naked, for safety reasons, and I'd wear clothing for things like running errands because I like to have pockets and I prefer to have tit support if I'm going to be running around. I'd also wear clothing in many public venues out of respect for public health concerns.

Now, if you're done visualizing my nubile flesh, could we please get back to the point?

I've already specifically stated, several times, that there are plenty of good reasons for people to wear clothing. I've specifically stated that I believe "BUT TEH MENZ GET HORNY!!" is not a good reason to make it illegal for women to choose how they clothe themselves. That doesn't meant there aren't other good reasons.

Ahhh and there is the problem. You are already assuming what my stance is based I guess on past experiences.

Lets get off of this 'horny men' and onto other reasons for the lack of public nudity prevalent in our society. What other reasons, apart from us horny men, and err safety, do you regularly choose not to go naked in public?

Ahhh and there is the problem. You are already assuming what my stance is based I guess on past experiences.

No, just based on what you've said on this thread so far.


Lets get off of this 'horny men' and onto other reasons for the lack of public nudity prevalent in our society.

Let's not. Seeing as how I've already addressed that. If you haven't been bothered to read what I've written so far, why should I bother to write more?


What other reasons, apart from us horny men, and err safety, do you regularly choose not to go naked in public?
Since I've already done so several times, how about instead you provide reasons why it should be illegal for women to be topless in places where it is legal for men to be topless?

Heh I see all of the pedants are joining in now! Out as in out side of clothing, rather than inside.

sigh

you are a married man with children. do you know what a vagina is?

a vagina is NEVER visible while walking around any more than YOU can walk around with your prostate out.

why do we know all the words for the various parts of male genetalia but only one word that is inaccurately used for every possible sector of female genetalia?

sigh

you are a married man with children. do you know what a vagina is?

a vagina is NEVER visible while walking around any more than YOU can walk around with your prostate out.

why do we know all the words for the various parts of male genetalia but only one word that is inaccurately used for every possible sector of female genetalia?
You know, you're right. I'm so used to boys (and some girls) not even knowing the name for my body parts that I just translate their words into sensible conversation automatically. But when I think about it, it's pretty silly. :D

why do we know all the words for the various parts of male genetalia but only one word that is inaccurately used for every possible sector of female genetalia?
The "various parts?" You mean the dick and the balls? Well, wowee, what a complex glossary of medical terminology I have there.

Why do you need every single human body to be sexually appealing to you? Why do you think that anybody who isn't sexually appealing to you should have to hide their body or wear clothing they don't want to wear, just to spare your poor tender eyes?
I never said anyone should have to fit the absurdly unrealistic heterosexual standards of beauty. If you had read my post, you'd note my concern was not the average person, but the substantially below average.
Sheesh, some people are just way too high-strung. Maybe it's because I'm a city kid, but I'm used to being around lots of people all the time, and I'm not bothered by the fact that some of them are physically unattractive to me. Of course, I'm also over the age of 14, and I'm aware that the world does not revolve around my sex drive.
My sex drive has nothing to do with it, my basic sense of aesthetics does. And quit trying to paint me into that stupid, one-dimensional role, the sex-obsessed males are on your side of this issue, if you haven't noticed.

Peep sez:

"If woman want to walk around topless by all means let them, but they will be started at by horny men, they will be followed around, they will be chatted up, and a whole swathe of men, will more than likely look at them as 'easy'."

Bottle sez:

'It's so funny to hear people like Peep talking as if covering the female body actually prevents harassment, too.'

Isn't it strange how my words above can be taken to mean what you said they have, yet we can clearly see I made no mention of preventing harassment. In fact what I did say was the likely way that men would responded, I guess that you could infer from that what you say I said, but that would be your inferences, not my actual words.

The "various parts?" You mean the dick and the balls? Well, wowee, what a complex glossary of medical terminology I have there.



i guess it depends on whether or not YOU use vagina when you might want to say vulva or labia or even pubic mound.

no one says "penis" when scrotum is the more appropriate reference word.

Isn't it strange how my words above can be taken to mean what you said they have, yet we can clearly see I made no mention of preventing harassment. In fact what I did say was the likely way that men would responded, I guess that you could infer from that what you say I said, but that would be your inferences, not my actual words.

what you seem to have said is that woman would have to deal with men reacting to their nudity.

as well they would.

it wouldnt be terribly different than what happens now when a woman leaves the house looking her best.

or when she is at a public pool now wearing a swimsuit.

if men can look but not touch, its no big deal.

if a man cant keep himself from commenting lewdly or touching a woman he is attracted to, it doesnt matter what she is wearing, now does it?

>.>
<.<
Hang on......

Need a few minutes of break time, Ifre? :p

No, just based on what you've said on this thread so far.

Really? Only you seem not to have understood a word that I have said so far?


Let's not. Seeing as how I've already addressed that. If you haven't been bothered to read what I've written so far, why should I bother to write more?

Ohh really? Okay well I guess I'll take that one to mean, your questions Peeps, they are hitting close to the bone, and as you can already see, I have tried to dodge them several times, no no man, I'll not play fair.


Since I've already done so several times, how about instead you provide reasons why it should be illegal for women to be topless in places where it is legal for men to be topless?

Why? I don't believe it should be. Go re-read my initial post and you'll see that I only said that this makes no sense to me, I don't see how fighting for the right to go bare chested is a fight against sexual inequality. I have of course been trying to show you why, but with your refusal to answer my qeustons a straight forward manor, I have been unable to.

I'll tell you what I can do though, I can answer my own question for you. Why do you not want to go around in public Peeps, with your dick hanging out?

Well I don't want people who I am not sexually active with looking at me in that way. My wife would not appreciate it. I don't want to scare kids. I don't want to prompt questions from kids to their parents about my dick and why I'm letting it all hang out. Sex although perfectly natural, should not really be displayed, talked about or discussed with you until you reach a certain age, by displaying myself in public in this way I take that choice away from others.

These are some of the reasons that I choose not to go naked in public, what about you?

i guess it depends on whether or not YOU use vagina when you might want to say vulva or labia or even pubic mound.

no one says "penis" when scrotum is the more appropriate reference word.
If you convince the next generation that vulva or labia make good invectives or rude interjections (perhaps a few phrases like "We've got them by the vulva" "Don't be such a labia-head"), I'm sure you'll see public knowledge and use of the terms increase dramatically.

If you convince the next generation that vulva or labia make good invectives or rude interjections (perhaps a few phrases like "We've got them by the vulva" "Don't be such a labia-head"), I'm sure you'll see public knowledge and use of the terms increase dramatically.

that certainly would work.

**EDIT**

i read your post to my 57 year old sister. she laughed for half a minute and agreed that it would work.

Really? Only you seem not to have understood a word that I have said so far?

Then please clarify.


Ohh really? Okay well I guess I'll take that one to mean, your questions Peeps, they are hitting close to the bone, and as you can already see, I have tried to dodge them several times, no no man, I'll not play fair.

Why not just answer questions and address the issue directly? You can try lame diversionary tactics if you really want, but I don't see why you'd want to.


Why? I don't believe it should be.

You asked why feminists would want this. Why wouldn't they?


Go re-read my initial post and you'll see that I only said that this makes no sense to me, I don't see how fighting for the right to go bare chested is a fight against sexual inequality.

I've tried to explain it to you. Men are permitted to go topless. Women are not. That is sexual inequality, because women are denied a right that men are permitted to have, for no reason other than that they are female.

What is unclear about that for you?


I have of course been trying to show you why, but with your refusal to answer my qeustons a straight forward manor, I have been unable to.

Show me why what? You've yet to provide a single reason why women should be barred from being topless in venues where men are permitted to be topless.


I'll tell you what I can do though, I can answer my own question for you. Why do you not want to go around in public Peeps, with your dick hanging out?

If I was interested in the answer to that question, I would have asked it. I'm not.


Well I don't want people who I am not sexually active with looking at me in that way. My wife would not appreciate it. I don't want to scare kids. I don't want to prompt questions from kids to their parents about my dick and why I'm letting it all hang out.

That's your personal business. Not to be harsh, but why should I care? I don't particularly care what you're wearing (or not wearing) as long as your clothing doesn't pose a direct danger to public health or public safety.


Sex although perfectly natural, should not really be displayed, talked about or discussed with you until you reach a certain age, by displaying myself in public in this way I take that choice away from others.

There's no right to not have to see other people.

People can be aroused by anything. People can be aroused by the sight of your bare arm, or your leg, or your face. You're not responsible for worrying about whether or not somebody else is physically aroused looking at you.


These are some of the reasons that I choose not to go naked in public, what about you?
I don't know why you want to pursue this completely irrelevant tangent. I find it boring.

sigh

you are a married man with children. do you know what a vagina is?

a vagina is NEVER visible while walking around any more than YOU can walk around with your prostate out.

why do we know all the words for the various parts of male genetalia but only one word that is inaccurately used for every possible sector of female genetalia?


*sigh* Yep yep, pedantism of the highest order.
Tell me did you really not understand what I meant? If I say cock, I mean shaft, glans, head, yep and even balls, the whole package under one simple name.

Would you really like me to re-phrase myself, or can you cut the pedantry?

I never said anyone should have to fit the absurdly unrealistic heterosexual standards of beauty. If you had read my post, you'd note my concern was not the average person, but the substantially below average.

My question stands. Why should anybody have to worry about your personal standards for attractiveness? Why should your standards for attractiveness determine what other people are legally permitted to wear?


My sex drive has nothing to do with it, my basic sense of aesthetics does.

My questions stand.


And quit trying to paint me into that stupid, one-dimensional role, the sex-obsessed males are on your side of this issue, if you haven't noticed.
I'm simply responding to what you've chosen to say. If you think you're coming across as stupid, one-dimensional, or whatever else, then perhaps you should take a second look at what you're saying.

It's also cute that you think I care so much about which side the "sex-obsessed males" are on, considering that my entire point is that their opinion on this subject is irrelevant.

what you seem to have said is that woman would have to deal with men reacting to their nudity.

as well they would.

it wouldnt be terribly different than what happens now when a woman leaves the house looking her best.

or when she is at a public pool now wearing a swimsuit.

if men can look but not touch, its no big deal.

if a man cant keep himself from commenting lewdly or touching a woman he is attracted to, it doesnt matter what she is wearing, now does it?


Indeed that is what I said, and in answer to your question, and assuming all of the qualifiers you name are true, then no.

Indeed that is what I said, and in answer to your question, and assuming all of the qualifiers you name are true, then no.
Then we have no debate. You agree that women should be allowed to be topless in any venue where men are allowed to be topless, and men do not have any right to abuse or harass these women simply because they are topless.

Nice when things are wrapped up so neat and tidy, no? :D

*sigh* Yep yep, pedantism of the highest order.
Tell me did you really not understand what I meant? If I say cock, I mean shaft, glans, head, yep and even balls, the whole package under one simple name.

Would you really like me to re-phrase myself, or can you cut the pedantry?

since i was being an anatomy nazi, i would like you to acknowlege that "vagina" was an entirely incorrect term.

i would have let it pass but the original question "would it be fine to be walking around with your vagina out?" was extremely creepy.

Then we have no debate. You agree that women should be allowed to be topless in any venue where men are allowed to be topless, and men do not have any right to abuse or harass these women simply because they are topless.

Nice when things are wrapped up so neat and tidy, no? :D

when someone makes this point i wonder whether they are clueless about the amount of sexual harrassment women already endure or if they think that there is some level of sexual attraction that a man cant be expected to control himself in the presence of.

a woman's consideration should be one of comfort and practicality. she should not have to be responsible for whether or not men can control themselves.

when someone makes this point i wonder whether they are clueless about the amount of sexual harrassment women already endure or if they think that there is some level of sexual attraction that a man cant be expected to control himself in the presence of.

a woman's consideration should be one of comfort and practicality. she should not have to be responsible for whether or not men can control themselves.
Precisely. And exactly what I have been saying this entire time. Also, exactly the feminist argument. In case anybody *coughPEEPcough* is still unclear about that.

Oh, this ought to be REAL popular amongst Sweden's Muslim community.

Then please clarify.

IOn order for me to do that I want you to answer my question. The one that you say is irrelevant(it is not) and the one that you say is boring you(I wonder why?)


Why not just answer questions and address the issue directly? You can try lame diversionary tactics if you really want, but I don't see why you'd want to.

Sorry Bottle, but it is you that is refusing to answer my question, not the other way around. Diversionary tatics? Again, you jump the gun you think that you know my stance and are second guessing me, but you have it wrong.

I ask you certain questions not as a diversion, but so that we can come together in understanding.


You asked why feminists would want this. Why wouldn't they?

Again then in order to understand my stance on this, you will have to answer my questions. Would feminists want the right to walk around in public bottomless? Would you? Why? Why not?


I've tried to explain it to you. Men are permitted to go topless. Women are not. That is sexual inequality, because women are denied a right that men are permitted to have, for no reason other than that they are female.

What is unclear about that for you?

Nothing is unclear to me, do you not see that there can be bias, yes even gender bias, that is both good and right though? That bias does not all the time equal inequality. It is biased not to let children drive, but it is also right that we do this. When a man pays for a hair cut he typically pays less, because of his gender, now that is sexual inequality.


Show me why what? You've yet to provide a single reason why women should be barred from being topless in venues where men are permitted to be topless.

That is because I don't believe that they should be barred. Again my initial post was all about questioning why feminist would want this.


If I was interested in the answer to that question, I would have asked it. I'm not.


That's your personal business. Not to be harsh, but why should I care? I don't particularly care what you're wearing (or not wearing) as long as your clothing doesn't pose a direct danger to public health or public safety.

Well you see these are the questions I want you to answer, I answered them myself in the interest of fairness, to try and give you some insight on where I'm try to head with this, and in the interest of debate. But you have told me that this line of debate is boring for you. Why?


There's no right to not have to see other people.

So it is perfectly leagle to appear naked in front of a strange child? There are no laws that relate to indecency then?




People can be aroused by anything. People can be aroused by the sight of your bare arm, or your leg, or your face. You're not responsible for worrying about whether or not somebody else is physically aroused looking at you.

But you are responsible for keeping you privates, umm private in public. Why is that?



I don't know why you want to pursue this completely irrelevant tangent. I find it boring.

Well I peruse it for a number of reasons. because I obviously do not find it irrelevant, and because you refuse to answer.

since i was being an anatomy nazi, i would like you to acknowlege that "vagina" was an entirely incorrect term.

i would have let it pass but the original question "would it be fine to be walking around with your vagina out?" was extremely creepy.

Ahh the vagaries of the human subjective perception huh! I found it not at all creepy.

Then we have no debate. You agree that women should be allowed to be topless in any venue where men are allowed to be topless, and men do not have any right to abuse or harass these women simply because they are topless.

Nice when things are wrapped up so neat and tidy, no? :D

Well yes we have no debate on whether woman should be allowed to bare their breast. Although my original 'why would they' point, well I'm still waiting to debate that one.:D

when someone makes this point i wonder whether they are clueless about the amount of sexual harrassment women already endure or if they think that there is some level of sexual attraction that a man cant be expected to control himself in the presence of.

a woman's consideration should be one of comfort and practicality. she should not have to be responsible for whether or not men can control themselves.

Heheh and that's quite funny, in this world of makeup, thin models, and woman trying their hardest to fit into a certain mold.

Precisely. And exactly what I have been saying this entire time. Also, exactly the feminist argument. In case anybody *coughPEEPcough* is still unclear about that.

And again somebody things *coughbootlecough* she has seconded guessed my motivations, and my perceptions.;)

IOn order for me to do that I want you to answer my question. The one that you say is irrelevant(it is not) and the one that you say is boring you(I wonder why?)

What question?!

You keep asking crap about what I would choose to wear in public, which I've answered. You ask about whether there are multiple reasons to cover oneself in public, and I've answered. What, exactly, are you getting at?


I ask you certain questions not as a diversion, but so that we can come together in understanding.

I've addressed your questions several times already. I really don't see why you think I'm going to want to keep answering them over and over and over.


Again then in order to understand my stance on this, you will have to answer my questions. Would feminists want the right to walk around in public bottomless?

I answered this with my first post on this thread.


Would you? Why? Why not?

I answered these with my first, third, sixth, and seventh posts on this thread.

Can you see why I wouldn't be interested in re-typing what I've already said?


Nothing is unclear to me, do you not see that there can be bias, yes even gender bias, that is both good and right though?

In the context of laws which dictate what citizens can and cannot wear, no. I have yet to be presented with a single valid reason why female citizens should be legally barred from making the same wardrobe choices that male citizens may make. If you'd like to present a reason, please do.


That bias does not all the time equal inequality. It is biased not to let children drive, but it is also right that we do this.

Are you comparing adult women to minor children? Are you suggesting that adult women are less able to make wardrobe choices than adult men? Are you suggesting that the bodies of adult women pose a physical danger to the public which the bodies of adult men do not?

Really, what is your point here?


When a man pays for a hair cut he typically pays less, because of his gender, now that is sexual inequality.

Actually, it's typically because he's got less hair and it requires less effort and time to cut his hair. My boyfriend used to wear his hair shoulder-length, and he paid the same for a hair cut as I did.

Also, most salons these days just have a flat fee for a haircut. Men and women pay the same at the place I use.

None of which is remotely relevant, at any rate. The existence of sexism in one forum does not magically justify sexism in another.


That is because I don't believe that they should be barred. Again my initial post was all about questioning why feminist would want this.

Are you still unclear about that, or do you now understand?


Well you see these are the questions I want you to answer, I answered them myself in the interest of fairness, to try and give you some insight on where I'm try to head with this, and in the interest of debate. But you have told me that this line of debate is boring for you. Why?

Because I already have been over it with you. Several times.


So it is perfectly leagle to appear naked in front of a strange child? There are no laws that relate to indecency then?

Um, no. I've made it very clear that public nudity isn't legal where I live.


But you are responsible for keeping you privates, umm private in public. Why is that?

Because if I don't, I will be sent to jail.


Well I peruse it for a number of reasons. because I obviously do not find it irrelevant, and because you refuse to answer.
Of course, as anybody can see, I've not refused to answer. I answered you a long while back. I've even repeated my answers several times.

when someone makes this point i wonder whether they are clueless about the amount of sexual harrassment women already endure or if they think that there is some level of sexual attraction that a man cant be expected to control himself in the presence of.

a woman's consideration should be one of comfort and practicality. she should not have to be responsible for whether or not men can control themselves.

I wonder if they have noticed how many women dress currently. From what I can see, women's fashions already have the clothes so tight that they might as well just walk around nude or in their undies. And if men can control themselves reasonably well in that situation, I don't see why they'd have any more trouble with bare breasts given time to adjust to it being more common.

I certainly don't expect it to change much in the long run.

Well yes we have no debate on whether woman should be allowed to bare their breast. Although my original 'why would they' point, well I'm still waiting to debate that one.:D
The reason we haven't gotten to debate that is because you have been dragging us down some tangent about all the many reasons why people might choose to wear clothing, none of which has anything to do with why feminists would argue for a woman's right to equal treatment under the law.

I wonder if they have noticed how many women dress currently. From what I can see, women's fashions already have the clothes so tight that they might as well just walk around nude or in their undies. And if men can control themselves reasonably well in that situation, I don't see why they'd have any more trouble with bare breasts given time to adjust to it being more common.

I certainly don't expect it to change much in the long run.
A hundred years ago people were insisting that if women were allowed to wear pants it would be far too "sexy" and revealing. Lo and behold, women wear pants now, and the average man is able to go about his day without limping from priapism.

My question stands. Why should anybody have to worry about your personal standards for attractiveness? Why should your standards for attractiveness determine what other people are legally permitted to wear?
Why should my personal standards of loudness determine how high other people are allowed to turn up their stereos? Why should my personal standards of cleanliness determine if people can legally throw their trash in the street?
The answer is simple: As long as we're going to live in a community of social individuals, certain concessions have to be made. These include: maintaining a minimum standard of appearance, not creating a noise disruption, not littering, and not running through the streets flailing your fists blindly.
I'm simply responding to what you've chosen to say. If you think you're coming across as stupid, one-dimensional, or whatever else, then perhaps you should take a second look at what you're saying.
I'm not coming across as stupid and one-dimensional, rather, the idea that the only people who could possibly have standards of taste are pubescent 14-year olds is stupid. The role itself, as an ad hominem device, that's what I find objectionable, just like you would find someone arguing against you by trying to paint you into the roll of an irrational (perhaps even hysterical) skirt to be objectionable.

A hundred years ago people were insisting that if women were allowed to wear pants it would be far too "sexy" and revealing. Lo and behold, women wear pants now, and the average man is able to go about his day without limping from priapism.

Don't tell anybody, but there are many women that I don't even see as sex objects. Shhh. ;)

The reason we haven't gotten to debate that is because you have been dragging us down some tangent about all the many reasons why people might choose to wear clothing, none of which has anything to do with why feminists would argue for a woman's right to equal treatment under the law.

Nope the reason being is that you do not answer my questions, coz they bore you. *Shrug*

Let me make myself as clear as I can then. You would advocate that woman be allowed to bare their breasts in public. Would you support a similar movement to allow all people to wonder around totally naked in public? And what would your reasons be for your answer?

A hundred years ago people were insisting that if women were allowed to wear pants it would be far too "sexy" and revealing. Lo and behold, women wear pants now, and the average man is able to go about his day without limping from priapism.

Though, admittedly, they are periodically incapacitated by mental images of Generalites sunbathing nude.

Nope the reason being is that you do not answer my questions, coz they bore you. *Shrug*
Weren't you complaining that Bottle was making assumptions about what your positions are? And then you go on to make assumptions for her reason for not answering your questions(though she certainly seems to have). Hmmm.

Scandinavians have a much more healthy attitude to nudity than most europeans.

Boobies FTW.

Nope the reason being is that you do not answer my questions, coz they bore you. *Shrug*

Last time I'm going to say this:

I've answered them. Multiple times. I don't know why you persist in your rude and dishonest claims that I haven't answered you, but I'm through running around in circles with you.

If you want my answers, read them. If you don't, quit asking for them. In either case, don't bother me about it again please.


Let me make myself as clear as I can then. You would advocate that woman be allowed to bare their breasts in public. Would you support a similar movement to allow all people to wonder around totally naked in public? And what would your reasons be for your answer?
Let me make myself as clear as I can. Nothing on this thread has given me any reason to believe that you will bother to read my answer if I bother to provide one.

If you would like to acknowledge the multiple times I've already answered your questions, and apologize for your rude behavior, then I'd be happy to continue the conversation. Until then, I don't really see any point in trying to engage with you.

Why should my personal standards of loudness determine how high other people are allowed to turn up their stereos?

Where I live, they wouldn't. Perhaps the laws are different where you live?

In my country, there are set laws about noise polution. I am welcome to call the cops if I think somebody is being too loud, but there are standards in place that will determine whether or not they are actually in violation of any rules. If they're not, then my opinion doesn't make a difference...they don't have to turn down their music just because I say so.


Why should my personal standards of cleanliness determine if people can legally throw their trash in the street?

They shouldn't.


The answer is simple: As long as we're going to live in a community of social individuals, certain concessions have to be made. These include: maintaining a minimum standard of appearance, not creating a noise disruption, not littering, and not running through the streets flailing your fists blindly.

None of this equates to YOUR PERSONAL OPINION being law. Indeed, it is precisely the opposite. Your personal standards are NOT law, which is why you can't decide that it's fine for you to throw your garbage in the street and then insist that it's okay because that's your opinion. You are not permitted to impose your personal tastes on others. Rather, there are common codes of conduct to which all are expected to adhere.

My only argument on this thread, really, is that there is currently a standard that is being imposed unevenly. Some citizens are forbidden to remove their shirts in a setting where other citizens are permitted to do so. I believe that consistutes an unjust discriminitory practice.


I'm not coming across as stupid and one-dimensional, rather, the idea that the only people who could possibly have standards of taste are pubescent 14-year olds is stupid.

Well, then it's a good thing nobody is pushing that idea! I'd hate to think there were stupid people up in here.


The role itself, as an ad hominem device, that's what I find objectionable, just like you would find someone arguing against you by trying to paint you into the roll of an irrational (perhaps even hysterical) skirt to be objectionable.
Fair enough. Forgive me for not using a lighter touch, but at this point I have very little patience with any man who feels entitled to tell me what I may and may not wear, particularly if he's basing his opinions on how attractive I am to him. It's pretty puke-tastic to suggest that other people's rights should be defined by your aethetic opinion of their bodies.

Weren't you complaining that Bottle was making assumptions about what your positions are? And then you go on to make assumptions for her reason for not answering your questions(though she certainly seems to have). Hmmm.

Not at all, read back a while and you'll she where tells me how boring and irrelevant my questions are.

Not at all, read back a while and you'll she where tells me how boring and irrelevant my questions are.

Maybe, but she seems to have answered them, excepting the last one, so your questions being boring obviously isn't why she didn't answer them.

None of this equates to YOUR PERSONAL OPINION being law. Indeed, it is precisely the opposite. Your personal standards are NOT law, which is why you can't decide that it's fine for you to throw your garbage in the street and then insist that it's okay because that's your opinion. You are not permitted to impose your personal tastes on others. Rather, there are common codes of conduct to which all are expected to adhere.
And a minimum level of clothing (including swimming tops) is part of that code of conduct.
If we were going by my standards of public appearance, there'd be an age-limit on hot-pants and those flabby Italians who smoke cigars around Central park would be forced to wear shirts.
My only argument on this thread, really, is that there is currently a standard that is being imposed unevenly. Some citizens are forbidden to remove their shirts in a setting where other citizens are permitted to do so. I believe that consistutes an unjust discriminitory practice.
You're acting as if it was just made up on the fly by some sort of male delusions, but the rules are based upon a real biological difference between men and women: the presence of boobs.
Fair enough. Forgive me for not using a lighter touch, but at this point I have very little patience with any man who feels entitled to tell me what I may and may not wear, particularly if he's basing his opinions on how attractive I am to him. It's pretty puke-tastic to suggest that other people's rights should be defined by your aethetic opinion of their bodies.
Understood. So rather than develop some legally mandated attractiveness index, I'd like to just keep everyone in their clothes while in public.

And a minimum level of clothing (including swimming tops) is part of that code of conduct.

Right. And, as I said in my post (which you quoted), I am aware of that, and I feel it is unjust to require that female citizens wear swimming tops while male citizens are not required to wear swimming tops.

Are my posts showing up in a foreign language or something?


If we were going by my standards of public appearance, there'd be an age-limit on hot-pants and those flabby Italians who smoke cigars around Central park would be forced to wear shirts.

Which is what I was talking about all along. It amazes me that there are people who's personal standards for public attire revolve around how attractive other people look. If my standards were used, people would wear anything they wanted as long as public health and safety were not compromised. Sure, there'd be plenty of people who would look like shit to me, but who cares? I'm sure they have more important things to worry about.


You're acting as if it was just made up on the fly by some sort of male delusions, but the rules are based upon a real biological difference between men and women: the presence of boobs.

Actually, I'm not acting like it was made up on the fly. I'm acting like it's a long-standing bit of idiocy, one which results in unjust discrimination against female persons who have boobs. Remember that men can and do have boobs, yet men are not required to cover their boobs. It is only the female breast which must be covered.

The presence of boobs is not the cause of the sex disparity in our laws. I know this because there are societies in which boobs and non-sexist shirt laws coexist. My home town, for instance, allows women to be topless anywhere men are topless, and women still have boobs in my home town.

Obviously the presence of boobs doesn't cause sexist laws, nor does the presence of boobs necessitate them.

(link (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/administration/afp-news.html?id=071113220825.er3h5k8g&cat=null))

What, they're doing that only now???
And here I was thinking Sweden was socially progressive ;)
That's been more or less the norm in Germany and Austria for a good few decades now.

If you would like to acknowledge the multiple times I've already answered your questions, and apologize for your rude behavior, then I'd be happy to continue the conversation. Until then, I don't really see any point in trying to engage with you.

What I have been both dishonest and rude? Not at all. Yes you did answer my question, thusly:

It is against the law, and for reasons of health and safety.

Yet I clearly just don't believe this, these are the only two reasons why you choose not to be naked in public?

Not for example, you don't wish men to ogle your naked body? Or you don't want to flaunt sex and sexuality in front of children who are not able to understand such things? Just because it is against the law, and for safety reasons?

Jeez and you call me a liar.

My point is that there are valid reasons why we have laws governing decency, there are valid reasons why the majority of us would not feel comfortable being naked in front of our teenager children or their friends. There are many valid reasons why we don't all go about naked in public as a matter of course.

These reasons have nothing to do with how the male views the female body, nor how the female views the male body come to think of it. The reasons I personally would not fight the fight to be able to walk around with my cock out, are the same reasons why I can't see how fighting for the right for a woman to have her tits out in public makes any sense to the feminist.

I asked would you be happy to walk around naked from the waist down, I assumed that you would give a negative answer, and wanted to find out why not. You answered health and safety and law, sorry I just don't believe that.

Do you want to answer me, or are these still irrelevant and boring for you?

What I have been both dishonest and rude? Not at all. Yes you did answer my question, thusly:

It is against the law, and for reasons of health and safety.

Yet I clearly just don't believe this, these are the only two reasons why you choose not to be naked in public?

Those were not the only reasons I cited. Read again.


Not for example, you don't wish men to ogle your naked body?

As I already said, men oggle me anyhow. I've been harassed while fully covered from head to toe. Covering my body doesn't prevent this behavior, so I don't consider it a reason to cover up.


Or you don't want to flaunt sex and sexuality in front of children who are not able to understand such things?

Being naked doesn't equate to "flaunting sexuality." I've seen both my parents nude many times, and they've seen me nude many times, and there was never anything remotely sexual about it. I've gone skinny dipping with my cousins, aunts, and uncles, and there was nothing sexual about it.

The naked human body isn't automatically sexual. Of course, you already know that. Is it sexual when a mother breastfeeds her baby? Is she exposing that baby to SEXUALITY? Of course not. Her bare breast isn't automatically sexual.


Just because it is against the law, and for safety reasons?

I've already been over this. Personally, I find it more comfortable to wear clothing in many situations, for pragmatic reasons (like how I want to have pockets). I also take safety and health concerns into account, as well as the laws of the land.


Jeez and you call me a liar.

I've repeated myself half a dozen times for your benefit. You insist I haven't answered you. There are two possibilities:

1) You are unable to read what I'm writing.
2) You are able to read what I'm writing and are choosing to say something about my writing which is not true.

I don't have any reason to suspect that you are illiterate, so I assume it's the second.


My point is that there are valid reasons why we have laws governing decency, there are valid reasons why the majority of us would not feel comfortable being naked in front of our teenager children or their friends. There are many valid reasons why we don't all go about naked in public as a matter of course.

Sigh.

I have stated, from the very beginning, from my initial posting, that there are plenty of valid reasons to wear clothing. I have also stated, over and over, that SEXISM is not a valid reason to impose laws about public dress (in my opinion).

Could somebody who isn't Peep please let me know if those posts are appearing and are readable?


I asked would you be happy to walk around naked from the waist down, I assumed that you would give a negative answer, and wanted to find out why not.

Well, there was your mistake. You shouldn't have assumed. You should have read my answers and actually payed attention to what I said.


You answered health and safety and law, sorry I just don't believe that.

So you admit that I did answer you, you just didn't like my answer so you decided to claim I hadn't answered?


Do you want to answer me, or are these still irrelevant and boring for you?
YOU JUST ADMITTED THAT I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOU.

Look, if you don't like somebody's answer you can talk about that. But you can't sit there and say, "I don't believe your answer" and then follow it up in the next line with, "And you haven't answered me yet!"

I'm not against topless women. At least not as often as I'd like to be. :)

I'm not against topless women. At least not as often as I'd like to be. :)

*he says, while typing on his laptop, cuffed to his bed* ? :p

I don't know that it'll have any impact on the looking-for-a-fight crowd, but the whole line of 'reasoning' that it's somehow bad to allow young children to see breasts exposed at the swimming pool seems ludicrous. For starters, it's already legal (where I live) for women to expose their breast(s) in public for the purposes of breast feeding a child, and so there are plenty of occasions where children might see this kind fo thing already.

It seems to me that the objections all just smack of prudishness. Perhaps if people were a little more liberated then the idea of young children seeing such things (think of the children!) might not be so wrong in their eyes.

In my world it makes no sense whatsoever for women to find themselves legally precluded from baring their torsos when men are not. None.

*he says, while typing on his laptop, cuffed to his bed* ? :p

As a matter of fact, I AM on my laptop. My desktop is having issues right now.

I don't know that it'll have any impact on the looking-for-a-fight crowd, but the whole line of 'reasoning' that it's somehow bad to allow young children to see breasts exposed at the swimming pool seems ludicrous. For starters, it's already legal (where I live) for women to expose their breast(s) in public for the purposes of breast feeding a child, and so there are plenty of occasions where children might see this kind fo thing already.

Agreed. If it's healthy and normal for a baby to have it's mother's nipple in its mouth, it seems a bit weird to turn around and insist that seeing bewbies is dirtybadsexual and kids have to be kept from such sights.

Isn't Sweden, like, the last place anybody of any gender would WANT to go topless? Isn't it, like, really cold there, like?
:rolleyes: Yep, you are clearly a genius! I am swedish, (but i shouldn't drift of the subject)

I couldn't care less if they want to swim topless, shit, they could swim in knight's armor if they want. But i dont see what the big fuzz is about really, by god if it is hard to put on a bikini, then fine, Swim topless! And they are also saying that it is an equality based thing. I mean, i guess you could try to force men to wear like, man bikinis, but i am pretty sure it wont work!

As a matter of fact, I AM on my laptop. My desktop is having issues right now.

I'm having the EXACT opposite problem, and am hoping to acquire a new laptop on Black Friday, at which point I can finally get my files off the ol' laptop (my desktop has a 10 gigabyte hard drive, 2 of which are eaten up by XP, and most of the rest of which by the programs I need to have on there).

Assuming I don't get trampled by frenzied shoppers at 6 in the morning.

Agreed. If it's healthy and normal for a baby to have it's mother's nipple in its mouth, it seems a bit weird to turn around and insist that seeing bewbies is dirtybadsexual and kids have to be kept from such sights.

As much as I hate to use the word: patriarchal doublethink. It's ok if your boobs are used to feed the next generation, but by god woman, keep them out of sight of the rest of us!

*disclaimer. The second sentence above was meant as an "example logic" of the other side, and does not reflect the views of the poster.

Actually, I'm not acting like it was made up on the fly. I'm acting like it's a long-standing bit of idiocy, one which results in unjust discrimination against female persons who have boobs. Remember that men can and do have boobs, yet men are not required to cover their boobs. It is only the female breast which must be covered.

And it's not even the breast which must be covered. It is specifically the nipple - and only the nipple - which must be covered. The rest of the breast can be legally exposed.

Do you think those who think there's actually some sort of biological reason for this discrimination will try and argue that men don't have nipples?

Do feminist women really want to be able to get out what are clearly seen by males as sex organs, out in public? For what? How does this promote sexual equality? I don't think it does, and should be treated the same as if it was a bunch of blokes wanting to walk around with their knobs out, for the sake of equality.

Equality, yes. Should women also have to wear veils because men many men see their faces as sexual?

It is against the law, and for reasons of health and safety.

How do nipples on women's breasts cause problems of health and safety not caused by nipples on men's chests?

These reasons have nothing to do with how the male views the female body, nor how the female views the male body come to think of it. The reasons I personally would not fight the fight to be able to walk around with my cock out, are the same reasons why I can't see how fighting for the right for a woman to have her tits out in public makes any sense to the feminist.

So genitalia and female nipples are the same thing to you? Why then, are male nipples excluded?

Could somebody who isn't Peep please let me know if those posts are appearing and are readable?

Both your posts and Peep's are readable. There's obvious misunderstanding nonetheless.

I'd venture to guess that it's because neither of you are quite getting the other's point of view. But that's just my read on it.

How do nipples on women's breasts cause problems of health and safety not caused by nipples on men's chests?



So genitalia and female nipples are the same thing to you? Why then, are male nipples excluded?
Because men's nipples aren't sexual...






...to Peep. The fact that, to other people, men's nipples might be as sexual as--or even more sexual than--women's nipples doesn't count.

Both your posts and Peep's are readable. There's obvious misunderstanding nonetheless.

I'd venture to guess that it's because neither of you are quite getting the other's point of view. But that's just my read on it.
What am I missing?

A hundred years ago people were insisting that if women were allowed to wear pants it would be far too "sexy" and revealing. Lo and behold, women wear pants now, and the average man is able to go about his day without limping from priapism.

Just so. I must also point out that long ago women weren't allowed to fence. Not because it a was a "masculine" sport, but because women would perspire, which would be far too "sexy".

When women were finally allowed to fence, they generally did so in dresses until the 20th century. Weird fencing dresses....

Just so. I must also point out that long ago women weren't allowed to fence. Not because it a was a "masculine" sport, but because women would perspire, which would be far too "sexy".

When women were finally allowed to fence, they generally did so in dresses until the 20th century. Weird fencing dresses....

You really do love the fencing dontcha :p

How do nipples on women's breasts cause problems of health and safety not caused by nipples on men's chests?

You could put an eye out with those things. :p

You really do love the fencing dontcha :p

http://www.fencingwear.com/gallery/images/fencingwear.176066_zoom.jpg

http://sabreoutreachnetwork.org/images/redsonlogo-no%20words.JPG

I use it now, I have used it before, and I will use it again.

What am I missing?

If my read is correct, an understanding of his debate style and rhetorical approach.

Neither of you are doing anything wrong. Communication is just difficult because of different styles.

It happens. I wouldn't sweat it.

If my read is correct, an understanding of his debate style and rhetorical approach.

Neither of you are doing anything wrong. Communication is just difficult because of different styles.

It happens. I wouldn't sweat it.
Let me rephrase:

Going in circles with Peep is boring. I would prefer not to be bored. If Peep is making some point that I'm not understanding (due to garbled communication or whatev) then I would greatly appreciate if somebody could take a bash at rephrasing what he's going for.

If my read is correct, an understanding of his debate style and rhetorical approach.

Neither of you are doing anything wrong. Communication is just difficult because of different styles.

It happens. I wouldn't sweat it.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/14/180px-Hgg_zooey.jpg

I had to go circles in with Hydesland with the same topic if you recall.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539665
Oy. I'd repressed my memories of that one. Thanks a lot, now the nightmares are gonna start again...

;)

Let me rephrase:

Going in circles with Peep is boring. I would prefer not to be bored. If Peep is making some point that I'm not understanding (due to garbled communication or whatev) then I would greatly appreciate if somebody could take a bash at rephrasing what he's going for.

I had to go circles in with Hydesland with the same topic if you recall.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539665

As much as I hate to use the word: patriarchal doublethink. It's ok if your boobs are used to feed the next generation, but by god woman, keep them out of sight of the rest of us!

*disclaimer. The second sentence above was meant as an "example logic" of the other side, and does not reflect the views of the poster. You realize, it's because it's to feed the next generation that women have to cover them. Flash them nips and you'll have men fighting the babies to get to the taps and thus leaving the next generation to starve. :D

Oy. I'd repressed my memories of that one. Thanks a lot, now the nightmares are gonna start again...

;)

I love horror.

You realize, it's because it's to feed the next generation that women have to cover them. Flash them nips and you'll have men fighting the babies to get to the taps and thus leaving the next generation to starve. :D

Hehehe. "For the children" indeed :p

You realize, it's because it's to feed the next generation that women have to cover them. Flash them nips and you'll have men fighting the babies to get to the taps and thus leaving the next generation to starve. :D

LOL

On Bottle's recommendation (in another thread), I slogged through this nonsense. My responses:

1) I agree with all those who point out that there is no reason not to allow women to go topless in the same conditions in which men are allowed to go topless.

2) I also agree with those who have pointed out that nudity =/= sex. Regardless of what may or may not turn on any given individual, there is nothing inherently sexual about being nude. There are lots and lots of situations in which people get nude in the presence of others, but which are in no way sexual situations. People need to get over this goddamned prudery or phobia or whatever the hell it is. Obsessively covering the body is not a universal habit, nor has it been the standard even in western society for even a full century. Not even in the puritanical USA.

3) As to all the arguments that women have to cover up because men might get distracted by boobies and this is somehow related to public health and safety, I can only say this: If men are that easily and dangerously distracted, maybe we should make it illegal for men to walk and chew gum at the same time, too.

4) And finally, to Bottle, I don't know where you live, but in the US, it's only illegal to be nude in public. Backyards, private porches, etc., are not public places, even if they can be seen from the outside. So you would have every legal right to sunbathe nude in your backyard or deck. Every now and then, someone tries to bring a complaint or suit against their neighbors because they can see their hideous asses walking around their backyards nekkid. The courts always dismiss such cases with a terse, "Why are you staring into your neighbor's backyard? Mind your own business, Mrs. Grundy." Now, if the private area can be seen from the street, which is a public place, that can sometimes get fuzzier, but in general, unless there is a clear intent on the part of the naked person to flash or otherwise harrass passersby in a sexual manner, then it's the same question -- why is the offended person looking into someone else's private space?

EDIT: Actually, I take back that part about if there is intent to harrass. If the person is within their own home, they have total freedom to do as they please, nudity-wise. For instance, I remembered after writing that, the following example: I once worked in an office that was directly across the street from an apartment building. The area I worked in was entirely filled by women employees, just by chance. The apartment window directly across from us was the home of a large, untidy man who liked to walk around his home naked with the windows uncovered. Every now and then, one of us would glance out the window and announce, "GAH! Pot-belly is jerking off again!" The guy had this charming habit of standing in front of the window to masturbate. Because of the exact angles of the buildings, we were never sure whether he could see us or not, or whether he was just a random exhibitionist, or what, but none of that mattered. The man was in his own home, and could do whatever he pleased.

Of course, the US prohibition on public nudity does not include places where public nudity is specifically allowed, such as nude beaches. In those cases, people who don't like public nudity and are within sight of a nude beach area can just train themselves to look at something else.

4) And finally, to Bottle, I don't know where you live, but in the US, it's only illegal to be nude in public. Backyards, private porches, etc., are not public places, even if they can be seen from the outside. So you would have every legal right to sunbathe nude in your backyard or deck. Every now and then, someone tries to bring a complaint or suit against their neighbors because they can see their hideous asses walking around their backyards nekkid. The courts always dismiss such cases with a terse, "Why are you staring into your neighbor's backyard? Mind your own business, Mrs. Grundy." Now, if the private area can be seen from the street, which is a public place, that can sometimes get fuzzier, but in general, unless there is a clear intent on the part of the naked person to flash or otherwise harrass passersby in a sexual manner, then it's the same question -- why is the offended person looking into someone else's private space?

I honestly wasn't clear on the laws regarding being nude in my parents' back yard, so that's good to know. I'm glad that our laws are at least somewhat sane on this topic. :D

According to a Ripley's: Believe it, or not! book it's illegal to sleep nude in Minnesota. That doesn't really make sense to me though....
If true, I'm officially a criminal.

When I was in high school our civics teacher helpfully informed us that it was also technically illegal to hang men's and women's underwear on the same clothes line. Minnesotan laws are fun.

I honestly wasn't clear on the laws regarding being nude in my parents' back yard, so that's good to know. I'm glad that our laws are at least somewhat sane on this topic. :D

According to a Ripley's: Believe it, or not! book it's illegal to sleep nude in Minnesota. That doesn't really make sense to me though....

I know I'll be keeping abreast of this... dammit, someone beat me to this joke at the bottom of the first page. :(

If true, I'm officially a criminal.

When I was in high school our civics teacher helpfully informed us that it was also technically illegal to hang men's and women's underwear on the same clothes line. Minnesotan laws are fun.

What's wrong with that state?

Ahh the vagaries of the human subjective perception huh! I found it not at all creepy.

its comments like this that make me ask one more time "do you know what a vagina is?"

consider this question...

would it be fine if you walked around with your colon out?

thats a creepy question if you think about it, isnt it?

the image of a woman having her vagina out is equally creepy because it is a completely internal organ so it would have to be some horrifying medical problem. the answer can only ever be "god, no!"

Heheh and that's quite funny, in this world of makeup, thin models, and woman trying their hardest to fit into a certain mold.

huh?

i dont understand what point you were trying to make.

I wonder if they have noticed how many women dress currently. From what I can see, women's fashions already have the clothes so tight that they might as well just walk around nude or in their undies. And if men can control themselves reasonably well in that situation, I don't see why they'd have any more trouble with bare breasts given time to adjust to it being more common.

I certainly don't expect it to change much in the long run.

no kidding!

nude wouldnt be more provocative than current fashion. men dont seem to be having any problem controlling themselves in public.

no kidding!

nude wouldnt be more provocative than current fashion. men dont seem to be having any problem controlling themselves in public.

Well, most men. I saw a man slap his pubescent daughter on the ass at a restaurant a couple years ago. It took a lot of self-control for me not to do something horribly counter-productive and violent.

Well, most men. I saw a man slap his pubescent daughter on the ass at a restaurant a couple years ago. It took a lot of self-control for me not to do something horribly counter-productive and violent.

Not to mention the possiblity that several health codes could've been violated... :p

i join the statement of many here..
pics or never hapened (some very sick guy (or women) made this up then)
and if not hapened GTFO:mad:

Well, most men. I saw a man slap his pubescent daughter on the ass at a restaurant a couple years ago. It took a lot of self-control for me not to do something horribly counter-productive and violent.

wow. that was a bucketful of wrong.

i hope that wasnt an indication of their usual relationship.

The answer is simple: As long as we're going to live in a community of social individuals, certain concessions have to be made. These include: maintaining a minimum standard of appearance, not creating a noise disruption, not littering, and not running through the streets flailing your fists blindly.

...and the answer here is simple. You are allowed to be as noisy as you wish so far as I can't hear it. You are allowed to be as dirty as you wish so far as I can't smell it. Therefore, one should as naked as they wish so far as I can't see it. This is considerably much easier to do than with noise and scent because of the extent each carries (and the limitations of the ear and the nose to "block out" the entities- but even there exists set "minimums" that allow a considerable amount of leeway), but when it comes to sight, it's as simple as looking away. No one's forcing you to look at a huge hairy man sitting on a park bench without his shirt on so if you don't like looking at him, look away. Of course, if that man came up to you and shoved his chest in your face you'd have every reason to complain (because that *is* forcing it upon you) but if he's leaving you alone, you owe him the same respect.

The only areas you'd be allowed to restrict items such as clothing are in places you yourself own- such as your house, a store, restauarant, private beach, etc. Otherwise, when you're asked to participate in the public world you're expected to come to grips with how others conduct their lives and leave them to their own devices, provided they do the same for you.

Do you want to answer me, or are these still irrelevant and boring for you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13215388&postcount=92

^ Bottle's already answered you about why she would (excuse the pun) "bottle" herself up in that manner- she just gave you an answer (it seems) you don't like. Repeating the question a million times isn't going to change Bottle's opinion in any form.

Now, there seems to be something you- and others who hold your opinion- are missing- how many women find the male chest attractive? If you're going to argue that men find the female breast attractive, you might as well acknowledge that women find the male "breast" (let's face it, that's what it actually is) attractive. So unless you're going to advocate that men also not walk around topless, you've got no basis for asking women to do the same.

Oh, and just for the record, males do lactate (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male lactation).

Theoretically, we should all be able to hang out entirely naked of our choosing - cold weather may be a good reason to wrap up, otherwise there's no real good reason to do so aside from being prudish.

A little mass nudity would be a good thing by making what we now see has hidden and forbidden as ordinary and usual.

If you really put your mind to it, there's no concrete reason not to allow complete nudity aside from the mores of current society.

Tits are sexy.

Feminists often go too far. It's only NATURAL that people look at breasts. When men whistle or comment, that's going too far... but going topless isn't going to change that. Society needs to change, and taking your top off isn't exactly what I'd call a successful political statement.

Can someone explain to me what this issue has to do with feminism and gender equality? I don't really know the statistics but I always thought that it's other women who are against this and not men.

A fight for gender equality is not necessarily a fight against men ... too many men see it as such. Fighting for gender equality is a large part about fighting against social oppression reguardless of the sex of the person enforcing it.

Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?

Well, let's be reasonable here. If a woman can walk around with her vagina out, she has a serious medical problem that needs immediate attention...

Well, let's be reasonable here. If a woman can walk around with her vagina out, she has a serious medical problem that needs immediate attention...

Which is...?

What's wrong with that state?

There are ALL kinds of odd laws all over the united states that just do not have enough attention to overturn

How the fuck they got put there in the first place is beyond me

Which is...?

Considering the Vagina is internal, and the Vulva is external...

Considering the Vagina is internal, and the Vulva is external...

Anatomy 101? :D

Anatomy 101? :D

Well, it's like calling a guy's penis a urethra... Almost.

Tits are sexy.

Feminists often go too far. It's only NATURAL that people look at breasts. When men whistle or comment, that's going too far... but going topless isn't going to change that. Society needs to change, and taking your top off isn't exactly what I'd call a successful political statement.
I wonder -- do people not read threads, or do they read them but just not care?

This argument has already been countered: One person being unable to overcome their hang-ups or fetishes and function like a normal human in social situations is not a reason to apply an unequal rule on the basis of gender. If there are areas in which men are allowed to go topless -- even though they may have smokin' hot pecs with pert little nipples on them -- then I see no reason why women should not be able to go topless in the same areas.

As for whether breasts are sexy or not...well, lots of things are sexy. So what?

My lord...won't someone think of the gay men? Doesn't anyone realise that this would cause them to suffer the most?

Considering the Vagina is internal, and the Vulva is external...

its disturbing that its necessary to point that out. just making the comment should have been enough for him to go "oops" and understand what you meant.

Tits are sexy.

Feminists often go too far. It's only NATURAL that people look at breasts. When men whistle or comment, that's going too far... but going topless isn't going to change that. Society needs to change, and taking your top off isn't exactly what I'd call a successful political statement.

the desire to go topless has nothing to do with changing men's reaction to bare breasts.

My lord...won't someone think of the gay men? Doesn't anyone realise that this would cause them to suffer the most?
I would think that gay men would be the one group of people who would care the least what women do with their breasts. I'd be surprised if the sight of a woman's breasts would cause them to suffer more than just having to share the world with this ridiculous debate over them.

Considering the Vagina is internal, and the Vulva is external...

My bad...well, I am a man...do I have an excuse now? :(

My bad...well, I am a man...do I have an excuse now? :(

Obviously not a very lucky man. :p
So yes, you have an excuse.

I would think that gay men would be the one group of people who would care the least what women do with their breasts. I'd be surprised if the sight of a woman's breasts would cause them to suffer more than just having to share the world with this ridiculous debate over them.

Kehehehehe, I just wanted to tease Fass again about flashing him my boobs.

My bad...well, I am a man...do I have an excuse now? :(

You're fucking Canadian. This is embarrassing. I know damn well they teach both male and female anatomy by at least grade 5 in Ontario.

Obviously not a very lucky man. :p
So yes, you have an excuse.

*shakes head* Sigh...

Believe me or not, I'm not a virgin...it just doesn't mean I'm going to study the female anatomy *that* intently (the only thing I need to know is just how it's all supposed to work :D).

You're fucking Canadian. This is embarrassing. I know damn well they teach both male and female anatomy by at least grade 5.

Hey now, that's low. My nationality has nothing to do with this.

Considering I'm not female- nor a medical student- I have no reason to remember with accuracy the details of female anatomy.

Hey now, that's low. My nationality has nothing to do with this.

Considering I'm not female- nor a medical student- I have no reason to remember with accuracy the details of female anatomy.

im hoping that thats not quite what you meant.

im thinking that as a non virgin you have an understanding that there is the outside part and the inside part and that the inside part is never outside.

perhaps you just didnt have the vocabulary down. that is a common problem even with women and girls.

Hey now, that's low. My nationality has nothing to do with this. Yeah, it does, because you're making us look bad.
Considering I'm not female- nor a medical student- I have no reason to remember with accuracy the details of female anatomy.
It's not as though you've simply forgotten about some obscure part of the female anatomy that one would only learn in Universtiy here.

im hoping that thats not quite what you meant.

im thinking that as a non virgin you have an understanding that there is the outside part and the inside part and that the inside part is never outside.

perhaps you just didnt have the vocabulary down. that is a common problem even with women and girls.

That's it, really. I would say I know the basics, like how it's shaped and how it feels, but as I've always understood "vagina" referred to the whole thing- at least that's what I remember from school (we were taught our organ was the penis and the female counterpart was the vagina. We're talking 13 years ago though and in a Catholic school- maybe sex education has changed since then).

Still, though I could go without an attack against my nationality (as Neesika did) and, really, what use would I have in knowing- exactly- where the vulva and vagina are? The only people that would *have* to know are doctors and medical students, because they're supposed to have more than a basic understanding of anatomy. Everyone else has no use, because it has no direct impact on our lives. That said, flat-out ignorance is always wrong and knowing is always better, but it isn't "required".

Yeah, it does, because you're making us look bad.

It's not as though you've simply forgotten about some obscure part of the female anatomy that one would only learn in Universtiy here.

I am allowed to make a mistake and doing so gives you no right to question "how good of a Canadian I am". That is still grossly uncalled for, especially considering (I suspect) I've been around General long enough for others to know my own capabilities.

I am allowed to make a mistake and doing so gives you no right to question "how good of a Canadian I am". That is still grossly uncalled for, especially considering (I suspect) I've been around General long enough for others to know my own capabilities.

I can question your worth as a Canadian all I want. Your failure reflects poorly on our system of education, and my comments to that effect are entirely called for. Your capabilities in other areas notwithstanding, you have show yourself to be ignorant in an area that elementary school children are expected to be familiar with. For shame! *boots out of Canada*

Kehehehehe, I just wanted to tease Fass again about flashing him my boobs.

Just because your boobs sicken me doesn't mean all boobs do. I really couldn't give a toss about topless or not topless women.

That's it, really. I would say I know the basics, like how it's shaped and how it feels, but as I've always understood "vagina" referred to the whole thing- at least that's what I remember from school (we were taught our organ was the penis and the female counterpart was the vagina. We're talking 13 years ago though and in a Catholic school- maybe sex education has changed since then). I was in elementary school a hell of a lot longer ago than that, and there was certainly more detail than 'penis' and 'vagina'. Catholic school curriculum is still provincial curriculum, and there is no way that you did not learn this throughout various years. Don't blame it on the school.

As this curriculum document (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health18curr.pdf) shows, the 'penis' and 'vagina' stage are taught in grade one. By grade three, children basic human reproduction. In grade five you were learning about puberty, menstruation and the formation of sperm. In grade six, a more detailed study of anatomy was carried out and grade seven is all about STDs (STIs). That document hasn't changed since 1998, and the older curriculum also included these elements of sexual education.

So really. I just don't want you claiming that the education system in your province let you down. Forgetting is fine. Claiming you were never taught it is not.

Just because your boobs sicken me doesn't mean all boobs do. I really couldn't give a toss about topless or not topless women.

You love my boobs. :P

I can question your worth as a Canadian all I want. Your failure reflects poorly on our system of education, and my comments to that effect are entirely called for. Your capabilities in other areas notwithstanding, you have show yourself to be ignorant in an area that elementary school children are expected to be familiar with. For shame! *boots out of Canada*

This is the last I will say this- I can handle being called "stupid". I can't handle being called a "disgrace to Canada" especially over a single mistake and thus I really find your comments very upsetting.

You love my boobs. :P

Confabulations.

This is the last I will say this- I can handle being called "stupid". I can't handle being called a "disgrace to Canada" especially over a single mistake and thus I really find your comments very upsetting.

Oh come on now. You're taking it a little seriously. We're generally much more self-effacing than this.

Confabulations.

Methinks the lad doth protest much :p

Methinks the lad doth protest much :p

Ha, well he's incorrect. I don't actually believe what I'm spewing.

Ha, well he's incorrect. I don't actually believe what I'm spewing.

Oh, DM is just sad and jealous that he hasn't gotten to see what you've otherwise shown everyone.

Oh, DM is just sad and jealous that he hasn't gotten to see what you've otherwise shown everyone.

If by everyone you mean all of probably 3 other people, it's hard to feel particularly excluded.

If by everyone you mean all of probably 3 other people, it's hard to feel particularly excluded.

She's shown them to more people than that in a single seance.

She's shown them to more people than that in a single seance.

Topless seances, eh? Interesting.

Oh, DM is just sad and jealous that he hasn't gotten to see what you've otherwise shown everyone.

DM may or may not be but I sure am :)

Topless seances, eh? Interesting.

A seance means "session, sitting". I was not referring to the 19th century parlour tricks, even if her boobs would've done as one.

Oh, DM is just sad and jealous that he hasn't gotten to see what you've otherwise shown everyone.

Well am I counting those that have seen them in person? Cuz that would be ridiculous.

People online that haven't seen them in person? Maybe six. If you don't count the people that have seen them and have no idea they belong to me :P

A seance means "session, sitting". I was not referring to the 19th century parlour tricks, even if her boobs would've done as one.

Oooh, I get it! Reverse psychology! More pics are on their way to you now. You only had to ask :D

Well am I counting those that have seen them in person? Cuz that would be ridiculous.

Not would, but is.

People online that haven't seen them in person? Maybe six. If you don't count the people that have seen them and have no idea they belong to me :P

It's odd how all of a sudden you're trying to act demure and coquettish in a vain attempt to salvage your non-existent honour.

Oooh, I get it! Reverse psychology! More pics are on their way to you now. You only had to ask :D

You have no venue to send them through - I am protected from your abuse as long as I have MSN and Skype off. :)

A seance means "session, sitting". I was not referring to the 19th century parlour tricks, even if her boobs would've done as one.

Double meanings for the loss :(.

Not would, but is. Oh please, you totally have me beat in terms of sheer numbers. *is jealous*



It's odd how all of a sudden you're trying to act demure and coquettish in a vain attempt to salvage your non-existent honour. Suck it. I just don't find much of a point in showing my tits to people I never intend to fuck. Unless it's you and then it's just funny.



You have no venue to send them through - I am protected from your abuse as long as I have MSN and Skype off. :)

Don't worry, they'll be waiting for you.

Oh come on now. You're taking it a little seriously. We're generally much more self-effacing than this.

Well, I still don't have to like it, but I'll let it go.

To drag this a little bit back on topic... :p

I agree with Bottle, of course. If we accept the premise that one of the main reasons why women are not allowed to go topless is to prevent harrassment by men, then obviously it should be up to men to control themselves. If a bare-chested woman were being harrassed in the pool, logically the man harrassing her should be told to leave, rather than the woman be asked to cover herself up.

Of course, that's not actually the only reason. There's the whole "moral decency" crowd. But there is no rational reason why women should not be allowed to take their tops off in the swimming pool.

It seems especially silly that nipples seem to be the main issue. Women can display, say, the upper two fifths of their breasts, as long as their nipples remain hidden. Why? It seems absurd that I, as a man, am allowed and even expected to bare my nipples in the pool, whereas women are forbidden from doing so. It makes very little sense.

i join the statement of many here..
pics or never hapened (some very sick guy (or women) made this up then)
and if not hapened GTFO:mad:

Dude, calm down. It's true... and there are pics? in the first page someone posted a link... :rolleyes:

Well, most men. I saw a man slap his pubescent daughter on the ass at a restaurant a couple years ago. It took a lot of self-control for me not to do something horribly counter-productive and violent.
Well you know what they say, if you can't keep it in your pants, keep it in the family.
You have no venue to send them through - I am protected from your abuse as long as I have MSN and Skype off. :)

Anti-tit firewalls, the latest in eye protection.

there is no rational reason why women should not be allowed to take their tops off in the swimming pool.

I've seen "safety" and "health" listed as possibilities...I'm not sure why. Maybe women's breasts produce more sweat or something (because they're bigger than a man's breasts)? Beats me. Mind you, there was a man who sued a Toronto strip club because a stripper's breasts knocked him out cold, maybe the Swedish authorities got wind of that? *shrugs*

Hiding the tits obviously hasn't prevented them from being sexualized, as this thread establishes.

My opinion is that hiding the tits is what CAUSED them to be sexualized in the first place. Much as ankles were fetishized (may have misspelled that, not in Firefox's spell check.) back when it was considered indecent for a woman to show her ankles . . .

Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?



Okay then you would be fine walking around with your vagina out then?

This has nothing to do with vaginas or penises, this has to do with the right of both genders to go topless. Currently neither gender is allowed to go bottomless so this nonsense is irrelevant.

And what would you say about the way a man would behave around a bottomless woman?

They would behave politely unless they enjoyed the grievous physical injury men like me would inflict (and many woman) on anyone daring to do otherwise.

Yeah but you are avoiding answering the question really. Lets try it then this way. If it was not illegal and it was tropically warm, then would you do it? Why, why not?

Well, as a man, yes I would. Is there a reason you wouldn't?

Again then in order to understand my stance on this, you will have to answer my questions. Would feminists want the right to walk around in public bottomless? Would you? Why? Why not?


She and others have already answered this, you are just ignoring the answers. If men were allowed to go bottomless in some situations then YES feminists would want the equal right to do so. As it stands men are allowed to go topless in some situations and feminists want the equal right to do so. What is dificult to understand?

Let me rephrase:

Going in circles with Peep is boring. I would prefer not to be bored. If Peep is making some point that I'm not understanding (due to garbled communication or whatev) then I would greatly appreciate if somebody could take a bash at rephrasing what he's going for.

I'd like to, but I seem to be getting the same reading as you "Boobies are bad and nakedness is 3b1l!!! because think of the children!"

Well, most men. I saw a man slap his pubescent daughter on the ass at a restaurant a couple years ago. It took a lot of self-control for me not to do something horribly counter-productive and violent.

In that situation I'm not sure breaking his arm would have been counter productive . . .

I heartily support these brave, pioneering women.

It's not about trying to get men to stop staring at exposed breasts.

It's about equality. The bared female chest poses no more threat than the bare male chest. Therefore, not allowing females to swim without tops while allowing men to do so is a blatant double standard.

I have read the thread, and it pretty much boils down to that.

To say "oh, men will be horny" is not a justification for keeping an unfair law. Seeing attractive women in sexy clothing makes me horny all the time. I can control myself. I should think that any adult can. To suggest that men somehow lose the ability to do so at the sight of a female nipple is quite frankly insulting. Someone who cannot control himself if he sees something that makes him horny should not be out in society, as such a person is clearly not mentally healthy, and I would consider them quite dangerous.

I'm sick of this bullshit argument as a justification for a legal double standard. And it ruins it for those of us who, when we see something sexy, can control ourselves. You know, the mentally healthy adults.

Finally the right subjekt to get men intrested in, and willing to support and fight for their struggle to gain equality.

I'm sad that the majority of men are unable to do that just by mere common sense. But alas they have never been discriminated in real life.

So for all women, take this opportunity to demand equal rights.

And boot out this wave of focus on our outsides when we let our insides rot in favour of a pleasant shell. Liberate your minds from that to!

And maybe the next step will be that we can accept the human body as a unity that is nothing more than it is, a cage of flesh for our souls and minds.

What is a beautiful person to someone who is blind?
What is it that really makes someone beautiful...

We are so scared of being rejected by others and left out that we swallow almost anything to minimize that risk, if I go with flow then I'm safe...

"Only dead fish follow the current"

Enlighten your self's and start making the decisions based on your own conclusions!

Wish you the best