NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading this article in the NYTimes "At Jets Game, a Halftime Ritual of Harassment" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/sports/football/20fans.html?em&ex=1195794000&en=10054cdcf920bb08&ei=5087%0A and it got me to thinking. Now i realize NY Jets are located in New Jersey but in NYS, the law says that anywhere in public a man is allowed to go topless so is a female. So what theoretically would happen, if you were watching a NY Yankee baseball game on TV and Jeter is up to bat, and that hot girl in the first row behind home plate stands up and simply takes her top off? In NYS its not illegal so if they try to remove her it would violate her rights and open up the team to a lawsuit. We know that MLB or NFL doest move or remove topless men in US sports and in fact they promote them by showing how crazy of a fan they are on the JumboTron while they are freezing thier asses off. Yet we also know ala Janet Jackson that breasts for whatever archane reason arnt allowed to flap around on National television. So how would this iron out?




OOPS: forgot the link to article, amazing noone yelled at me about it. Fixed.

Leagalize Tits Now!

And yes i know i spelled breasts wrong in the title :(

You can edit your title.

I don't know what would happen, but I can guess.

Because it is legal in NY there would be no problem except for televised viewing outside NY. So all the channel has to do is blur the ... visual distraction. Even for a "live" game this is possible if people are on their toes; live TV and radio actually go out about 8 seconds after they they occured.

I have a friend who works for an ameture radion company. For radio this is used to cut offensive callers before the signal goes out.

The TVs would pixelise it and the teams would reserve the seats behind the plate for club officials and family or some group where they could guarantee that it wouldn't happen.

The TVs would pixelise it and the teams would reserve the seats behind the plate for club officials and family or some group where they could guarantee that it wouldn't happen.

I do not believe instant pixelation is an available technology. I seem to recall Howard Stern complaining what an annoying and time consuming process pixeling was for his shows on E! but that was a few years ago and perhaps this has changed.

What if say for whatever reason a legion of women decided to go topless for a Buffalo Bills game? It would be virtually impossible in the complexities of filming a NFL football game that some woman in all her HD glory in the stands couldnt be picked out no matter how hard the camera crews tried not to?

Doesn't have to be pixelized, you can just paste another image over top real quick. Black bars work, or for comedy value these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-footed_Booby).

BOOBIES!

Doesn't have to be pixelized, you can just paste another image over top real quick. Black bars work, or for comedy value these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-footed_Booby).

BOOBIES!

Ok,but i still dont think instant black bar technology exists for that matter either. When John Madden puts an X on a football player on his pen telestrater thingie, the X doesnt continue to follow the player as he moves around. Its just a static blob on the screen.

Ok,but i still dont think instant black bar technology exists for that matter either. When John Madden puts an X on a football player on his pen telestrater thingie, the X doesnt continue to follow the player as he moves around. Its just a static blob on the screen.

Shouldn't be too hard to do, just have a monkey sit there and edit the image with one of those gizmos. It's not like the jugs are gonna be moving around a lot.

They could make a little game of it. How many images for breast euphemisms can they paste on there?

I was reading this article in the NYTimes "At Jets Game, a Halftime Ritual of Harassment" and it got me to thinking. Now i realize NY Jets are located in New Jersey but in NYS, the law says that anywhere in public a man is allowed to go topless so is a female. So what theoretically would happen, if you were watching a NY Yankee baseball game on TV and Jeter is up to bat, and that hot girl in the first row behind home plate stands up and simply takes her top off?

Some sexually repressed people would whine, but nothing important would happen.

no, they couldn't.

Women exposing their breasts could be a sport. :)

Women exposing their breasts could be a sport. :)

Already exists, women's volleyball. If a player's boob/s pop out of her top, her side gets extra points.

Already exists, women's volleyball. If a player's boob/s pop out of her top, her side gets extra points.

I approve. :)

Leagalize Tits Now!seconded :D

Already exists, women's volleyball. If a player's boob/s pop out of her top, her side gets extra points.awesome :D
World Series 2013:
Texas Rangers win by half a nipple.

Just as the percentage of unattractive males remove their tops it can be said that not all "breasts" are attractive. I'm sure you have at least once said "OMG how am I goning to burn this image from my memory" - Just imagine that the woman behide 1st base is got a set of flapjacks instead of nice ripe melons.

it can also be said that women "at least a larger percentage then men" have more self respect than that.

America is so sexually oppressed that this will never be allowed.

America is so sexually oppressed that this will never be allowed.

Yet , New York which does allow it is one of the largest States in the Union.

The way to get around the law concerning "women can be topless anywhere men can be" is simple - don't allow men to remove their shirts, either. Frankly, I support such a rule in all stadiums and in the general public. I'm not a prude - I just don't think anyone needs to go around letting it all hang out. Besides, I don't want to see that out in public on anyone.

To hell with all the idiot frat boys and drunken fat guys who paint their chests in team colors. They look ridiculous anyway. I say ban the bare skin and shut up about it!

(Actually, there are stadiums where men cannot remove their shirts. I'm pretty sure the Carolina Panthers' home stadium has such a rule.)

The way to get around the law concerning "women can be topless anywhere men can be" is simple - don't allow men to remove their shirts, either. Frankly, I support such a rule in all stadiums and in the general public. I'm not a prude - I just don't think anyone needs to go around letting it all hang out. Besides, I don't want to see that out in public on anyone.

You don't need your computer. Hand it over. And I don't want to see you in public. Never go out in public again.

To hell with all the idiot frat boys and drunken fat guys who paint their chests in team colors. They look ridiculous anyway. I say ban the bare skin and shut up about it!
Hair looks ridiculous. Shave all yours off now.

Left pinkie fingers look repulsive to me, they should all be covered.

Hair looks ridiculous. Shave all yours off now.

Or they could just wear a hat. Kinda like wearing a shirt.

I support the "you must wear clothing covering every part of your body" bill. Except for the face because then it will be hard to do drugs.

Edit: sorry forgot to make a point. The entire reason breasts can't be shown is due to the sexual nature so the head thing is bogus. Though the ass should be completely free from sencorship.

Click Stand;13233637']Or they could just wear a hat. Kinda like wearing a shirt.
Not good enough. Everyone has to abide by my standards of decency.

I support the "you must wear clothing covering every part of your body" bill. Except for the face because then it will be hard to do drugs.
I support mooning supports of this hypothetical bill.

Edit: sorry forgot to make a point. The entire reason breasts can't be shown is due to the sexual nature

I find fingers sexual. Wear mittens from now on.

Click Stand;13233637']...The entire reason breasts can't be shown is due to the sexual nature...
A few days ago there was a whole thread debating whether or not female breasts had a "sexual nature". I'm damned if I can remember how it ended, though ;)

Not good enough. Everyone has to abide by my standards of decency.

if the hat covers it up then you can't be offended, it's against the rules.

I support mooning supports of this hypothetical bill.
I find fingers sexual. Wear mittens from now on.

The difference between what you find sexual and what the majority of society find sexual are two very different things.

A few days ago there was a whole thread debating whether or not female breasts had a "sexual nature". I'm damned if I can remember how it ended, though ;)

awww, I must have missed it. Can anyone tell me the stunning conclusion?

Click Stand;13233650']if the hat covers it up then you can't be offended, it's against the rules.



The difference between what you find sexual and what the majority of society find sexual are two very different things.

But why are women's breasts sexual? I think it is probably because they are, in fact, a secondary sexual characteristic. Of course, obviously it is not only things having to do with childmaking/birth/feeding, because the butt also has to be covered in american culture. So is there any single rule that can describe what defines what "must" be covered?

You don't need your computer. Hand it over. And I don't want to see you in public. Never go out in public again.

You first.

Hair looks ridiculous. Shave all yours off now.

Gladly. And gimme some Nair or something so it doesn't grow back for a while.

Click Stand;13233653']awww, I must have missed it. Can anyone tell me the stunning conclusion?
found it, it was Arridia's excellent exposé of Swedish women campaigning for what amounts to no more than the right to be treated the same way as men are treated - Swedish women "launch campaign to go topless" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543163).

When I left it, the thread was being held by those whose position was that female breasts are only seen as sexual by certain men, that other men might find other parts of the body sexually attractive, and that - regardless of how people tried to spin it - they were not sex organs, and the inequality was wrong. Since this was largely the position I agreed with, I left it alone and it had droppped off the front page by the time I came back.

So there you go :)

Click Stand;13233650']if the hat covers it up then you can't be offended, it's against the rules.
Make sure to cover your eyebrows too.



The difference between what you find sexual and what the majority of society find sexual are two very different things.

Though it's ultimately the same thing. Restricing someone's rights based on what other people think is sexual. But anyway, why is it that sexual things can't be displayed in public?

If people want women and men to be equal then i think that when a guy can go topless a women can to. Cause the breast isnt sexual like other parts of the body. I think nudity should be allowed if people want to expose it let them. People dont want their kids to see it put a fence around your yard.

Though it's ultimately the same thing. Restricing someone's rights based on what other people think is sexual. But anyway, why is it that sexual things can't be displayed in public?

Because kids can't learn about sex until they talk with their parents first so you can't be anywhere close to children (stadium not the best place)

Click Stand;13233671']Because kids can't learn about sex until they talk with their parents first so you can't be anywhere close to children (stadium not the best place)
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this viewpoint of yours with breastfeeding in public places? Are you one of those that think it should be banned?

Click Stand;13233671']Because kids can't learn about sex until they talk with their parents first so you can't be anywhere close to children (stadium not the best place)

I, and 99% of the people who attended public schools learned about sex long before "the talk". You're being naive.

I, and 99% of the people who attended public schools learned about sex long before "the talk". You're being naive.

I bet I'm the only one who figured it out from That 70s Show. :p

found it, it was Arridia's excellent exposé of Swedish women campaigning for what amounts to no more than the right to be treated the same way as men are treated - Swedish women "launch campaign to go topless" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543163).


I do try to please. :p Anyway, on this new topic, if significant numbers of women started to take their tops off in public places, I suppose it would very gradually come to be accepted.

Maybe it would at least start a debate, and people might realise that there's no rational reason to prevent women from going topless in public.

maybe it would put a dent in the senseless suppression of anything sexual in the mainstream. I find it ironic that we can have primetime comedy which makes light of rape (think the song 'prison bitch'), primetime which makes regular reference to sex of all kinds, primetime which shows relentless violence, but let one boobie pop out and OMG THINk OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

It is this unnatural suppression which leads to much of the sexual deviancy in America IMHO.

I say - bring it on. We should stop all this hyporcitical and irrational bullshit already.

Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile this viewpoint of yours with breastfeeding in public places? Are you one of those that think it should be banned?

Why do they need to be outside when they do it? I don't even see the need for breast feeding, many babies live perfectly happy lives without it. If it is really a choice then it shouldn't be veiwable in public.

Sadly I am not a woman so I won't ever know what it's like, so I'm just gonna go with what makes sense to me.

I, and 99% of the people who attended public schools learned about sex long before "the talk". You're being naive.

You polled everyone who went through public schools!?! Assuming that seems more naive to me.