NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.

fine.

we'll bar men from going topless in public.

feel better now?

New York men and women can go about topless.

Nudity laws are a product of a more prudish time. It's just flab people, odds are you see it every day in the mirror.

man-boobs are free for everyone. woman-boobs are for babies, that's why they have to keep it covered.

:D

fine.

we'll bar men from going topless in public.

feel better now?

*sniff sniff*. I guess

New York men and women can go about topless.

Nudity laws are a product of a more prudish time. It's just flab people, odds are you see it every day in the mirror.

Yeah, but they still have sexual connotations to them. Especially to little boys. I speak by experience.

I think that people should have a yearly "attractiveness" rating.

Go to the government, get your body checked out by a panel of judges while you're nude.

If you're hideous, you can't take your clothes off outside, and you don't need to come back unless you've radically changed something.

If you're attractive, you get a permit to be naked when you please, and you come back once a year to get ogled, I mean judged again.

I agree that nudity laws stem from a more prudish time period, but I suppose there is a time and a place for everything.

By that, I mean to say I fully support the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" rules that some venders carry, but overall, it does seem silly that the thing that keeps women mandatorily covered (nipples) is nothing to be ashamed about for men.

And further, the only reason men have nipples in the first place is because, while in the womb and developing, every fetus begins as a female. By the time the Y chromosome attaches, the nipples have already developed.

So to deny (by law, not by personal standards of service - as in the "no shirt" rule) a woman equal rights to show her chest as men is a disservice to BOTH men and women since we ALL begin (at conception) as women.

I agree that nudity laws stem from a more prudish time period, but I suppose there is a time and a place for everything.

By that, I mean to say I fully support the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" rules that some venders carry, but overall, it does seem silly that the thing that keeps women mandatorily covered (nipples) is nothing to be ashamed about for men.

And further, the only reason men have nipples in the first place is because, while in the womb and developing, every fetus begins as a female. By the time the Y chromosome attaches, the nipples have already developed.

So to deny (by law, not by personal standards of service - as in the "no shirt" rule) a woman equal rights to show her chest as men is a disservice to BOTH men and women since we ALL begin (at conception) as women.

What's wrong with no shoes? I hate shoes, I wouldn't wear them if I didn't have to.

What's wrong with no shoes? I hate shoes, I wouldn't wear them if I didn't have to.

Same here, but I relieze the health hazards of footlessness. Ever hear of athletes foot?

Same here, but I relieze the health hazards of footlessness. Ever hear of athletes foot?

Bleach will kill it in about 2 seconds. Honestly that they advertise medications for it amazes me.

If male chests had the same effect on heterosexual women as female chests have on heterosexual men, either both could go topless or neither would. As it is, the milk producers stay clothed, the hairy (or oiled or medallioned or what-have-you) ones are allowed out.

the surge in traffic accidents alone would not justify women going topless as a rule. Now, if society could tolerate the fallout from said accident rate increase for the length of time it took for it to accept as normal such exposure, then fine. It might even prop up the economy as more jobs open up in law, medicine and auto repair.

What's wrong with no shoes? I hate shoes, I wouldn't wear them if I didn't have to.

I agree with you. I hate shoes too. In fact, as I sit in my office, typing this post, I have removed my flip-flops and airing my feet out for the world to see. :p

The point is business owners should have the right to choose what they deem appropriate dress for their establishment, but who is the government to say the same body parts can't be shown on men and women?

But you knew that already. ;)

Same here, but I relieze the health hazards of footlessness. Ever hear of athletes foot?

yea, having no feet would suck, you couldnt take your shoes off even if you wanted to... :P

As to the more important question- I'd say its not illegal where I am, and would probably be overturned if it made it to the supreme court where you are. Equal protection and such. Unfortunately no women I have even seen have taken advantage of this liberty, and infact I've heard them complain "I wish I could take my shirt off like you" after I informed them that legally they could, they didn't show as much enthusiasm for the idea.

fine.

we'll bar men from going topless in public.

feel better now?

Having seen the majority of men who choose to go without shirts, YES.

Same here, but I relieze the health hazards of footlessness. Ever hear of athletes foot?

Well, that's either poor word choice or blatant prejudice against the disabled. And to then wonder about a footless person's problems with athlete's foot? Insensitive.

I hope you meant shoelessness. :p

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.

simple... women look better topless... and the men are jelouse so they penalize the women for being better looking. :D

I wonder how many women would actually do this though?

we'll bar men from going topless in public.

feel better now?

oh god yes! :p (vest should also be banned)

*is pissed off at that health geek with perfect abs who I keep seeing*

If male chests had the same effect on heterosexual women as female chests have on heterosexual men, either both could go topless or neither would. As it is, the milk producers stay clothed, the hairy (or oiled or medallioned or what-have-you) ones are allowed out.

the surge in traffic accidents alone would not justify women going topless as a rule. Now, if society could tolerate the fallout from said accident rate increase for the length of time it took for it to accept as normal such exposure, then fine. It might even prop up the economy as more jobs open up in law, medicine and auto repair.*Nod*

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't?

Uhm, they are.

I don't have a problem with nudity, on men or on women. I think the body is beautiful and, unless you're cold, there's no need to hide it under layers and layers of fabric. Of course, I live in a country where going topless isn't taboo. I don't know about anyone else.

I assume it's because the breasts are seen to be far more sexually arousing to men and viewed as obscene in western culture, thus deemed inappropriate. Don't try and find any reasoning behind it, pretty much all aspects about culture are arbitrary.

Bleach will kill it in about 2 seconds. Honestly that they advertise medications for it amazes me.

2 seconds? Bah! Nuclear explosions will kill it in 2 milliseconds!

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.
In America, I'd probably ban everyone from going topless, to be honest.

actually, female breasts are a distraction. not only because they are sexually arousing, but because they move... they bounce. our hunter genes makes our eyes focus on objects that move. that's why men look at breasts and asses (both 'jiggle') it's not that we're pigs, but our genes makes us stare.

the smaller the breasts, the less jiggle and thus less chances of us staring. :D

people stare at the stomach and flabby areas of overweight people for the same reason. they jiggle and thus attract our eyes.

In America, I'd probably ban everyone from going topless, to be honest.

Even Brazil? Your loss.

Having seen the majority of men who choose to go without shirts, YES.



Well, that's either poor word choice or blatant prejudice against the disabled. And to then wonder about a footless person's problems with athlete's foot? Insensitive.

I hope you meant shoelessness. :p
Whoops! :p
Uhm, they are.
Lucky. Stop living in Sweden!:p
In America, I'd probably ban everyone from going topless, to be honest.
Bah. European myth.:D

Even Brazil? Your loss.
Ho hum. You know what I meant, Fass.

actually, female breasts are a distraction. not only because they are sexually arousing, but because they move... they bounce. our hunter genes makes our eyes focus on objects that move. that's why men look at breasts and asses (both 'jiggle') it's not that we're pigs, but our genes makes us stare.

the smaller the breasts, the less jiggle and thus less chances of us staring. :D

people stare at the stomach and flabby areas of overweight people for the same reason. they jiggle and thus attract our eyes.

Speak for yourself.

Even Brazil? Your loss.

No kidding! Cafe-au-lait skin (or darker) and the Samba? Yes please!

Lucky.

Not particularly for that reason, as breastesses are wasted on me.

Stop living in Sweden!:p

I cannot acquiesce.

Not particularly for that reason, as breastesses are wasted on me.

Oh. Right. Trade countries? :p
I cannot acquiesce.
:confused:

I disapprove of women going braless anywhere.





Cos apparently there's some manner of bra now that can generate electricity from boob jiggling.

Cos apparently there's some manner of bra now that can generate electricity from boob jiggling.

Really? that's shocking... :p

I think that people should have a yearly "attractiveness" rating.

Go to the government, get your body checked out by a panel of judges while you're nude.

If you're hideous, you can't take your clothes off outside, and you don't need to come back unless you've radically changed something.

If you're attractive, you get a permit to be naked when you please, and you come back once a year to get ogled, I mean judged again.

Discrimination much?
Either everyone should be free to choose to go about nude, or no one should be free to choose to go about nude.
You don't HAVE to look if you don't want to.

I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted

Frankly, no idea. Why?

Same here, but I relieze the health hazards of footlessness. Ever hear of athletes foot?

That doesn't keep me from walking shoeless. Broken bottles and burning cigarette stubs do, though.

As for the topic, the "breasts are sexual" is just bullshit created by our culture. (And yes, I contribute to that by finding woman's breasts sexually attractive) A friend of mine who was travelling in Africa (Senegal if I remember correctly) told me not only the local women don't give a fuck if their breasts are seen (and the clothing they wear doesn't really hide 'em) but they also don't get any sexual stimulation from that area.

Oh. Right. Trade countries? :p

Hmm, let's see, progressive Scandinavian superiority for a backwards, moralist shithole... I am not all too enticed.

:confused:

English, do you concede to the accusation of being fluent in it, you who fornicate with uni- and/or multiparae?

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't?

In some places neither are allowed to, in some places both are allowed to, in some places they are allowed to walk around buck naked.

Your local laws may vary.

Hmm, let's see, progressive Scandinavian superiority for a backwards, moralist shithole... I am not all too enticed.

Fudge. What if I throw in the bill of rights?:p

English, do you concede to the accusation of being fluent in it, you who fornicate with uni- and/or multiparae?
I plead guilty! *Cries* Except for that last part.

Cos apparently there's some manner of bra now that can generate electricity from boob jiggling.
Then we should harness that as a "green" source of energy.

What's wrong with no shoes? I hate shoes, I wouldn't wear them if I didn't have to.

Go sandals. ;)

English, do you concede to the accusation of being fluent in it, you who fornicate with uni- and/or multiparae?

I plead guilty! *Cries* Except for that last part.
Ah, so not with the multiparae. Hmph, you deflowerer.

If male chests had the same effect on heterosexual women as female chests have on heterosexual men, either both could go topless or neither would. As it is, the milk producers stay clothed, the hairy (or oiled or medallioned or what-have-you) ones are allowed out.

the surge in traffic accidents alone would not justify women going topless as a rule. Now, if society could tolerate the fallout from said accident rate increase for the length of time it took for it to accept as normal such exposure, then fine. It might even prop up the economy as more jobs open up in law, medicine and auto repair.

So you subscribe to the "males are such cavemen they can't control themselves, ergo they lose all hints of intelligence, self-preservation, and self-control in the face of the mighty boobie" idea?

I think more highly of men.

Fudge. What if I throw in the bill of rights?:p

Nah, it's dreadfully antiquated and insufficient for usage in modern countries, you see. Had you perchance thrown in Jake Gyllenhaal, we would've been talking.

I plead guilty! *Cries* Except for that last part.

Right. You don't fornicate with anyone. Mea culpa maxima.

In America, I'd probably ban everyone from going topless, to be honest.

For the same reason, I would ban everyone in the UK from smiling.

Right. You don't fornicate with anyone. Mea culpa maxima.
Latin?

Latin?

It means, "My most grievous fault."

So you subscribe to the "males are such cavemen they can't control themselves, ergo they lose all hints of intelligence, self-preservation, and self-control in the face of the mighty boobie" idea?

I think more highly of men.

I respect you, Kat, and always have, but frankly, this level of snide superiority was unnecessary. Where did I say ANY of that? I just mentioned the effects, that's all. I didn't endorse them, and never would. I was merely acknowledging the fact that the vast majority of men are mollified or otherwise affected by bare breasts. Mardi Gras wouldn't be half the draw that it is for typical men without that effect, and Girls Gone Wild would still be operating out of that asshole's basement instead of all over Comedy Central when I'm trying to catch up on all the seasons of South Park I missed while I was three years without cable in North Dakota.

Now, may please be exonerated from your charge of man-bashing and get on with my life until you have sufficient evidence from my posting history to make such a claim (short answer: you don't)?

See? I can overreact, too.

Latin?

Dictum sapienti sat est.

Ah, so not with the multiparae. Hmph, you deflowerer.

What's multiple pregnancy got to do with it?

Really? that's shocking... :p
Only if wired improperly
Then we should harness that as a "green" source of energy.

There is also some clubs that generate electricity from the energy of people dancing on the dance floor. These two technologies need to come together.

What's multiple pregnancy got to do with it?

Multigravidae would have to do with multiple pregnancy - that had to do with births and what those render the women.

Multigravidae would have to do with multiple pregnancy - that had to do with births and what those render the women.

I know. I figured "multiple pregnancy" was easier to type and understand than "multiple individual pregnancies that resulted in viable offspring".

As for "what those render the women", I assume you're talking about the various post-partum stretching, sagging, and the like?

If male chests had the same effect on heterosexual women as female chests have on heterosexual men, either both could go topless or neither would. As it is, the milk producers stay clothed, the hairy (or oiled or medallioned or what-have-you) ones are allowed out.

the surge in traffic accidents alone would not justify women going topless as a rule. Now, if society could tolerate the fallout from said accident rate increase for the length of time it took for it to accept as normal such exposure, then fine. It might even prop up the economy as more jobs open up in law, medicine and auto repair.

You have a point about chests, but men should still have to wear shirts to avoid injury. I've definitely done myself damage turning to look at a guy's back/shoulders (fucking surfers!) and run into garbage cans and the like.

I was going to make the point that we'd get used to it, like nudist colonies, but then I actually read and saw you'd done it. Damn you and your logic!

If male chests had the same effect on heterosexual women as female chests have on heterosexual men, either both could go topless or neither would. As it is, the milk producers stay clothed, the hairy (or oiled or medallioned or what-have-you) ones are allowed out.

I always like this reasoning. "Men are incapable of controlling themselves and acting like adults, so women should be restricted."

Incidentally, it's the exact same reasoning used in countries that force women to cover themselves completely.

Also, I would add that seeing a man with a nice chest out running with no shirt on is rather distracting when driving a car. This goes both ways, you know.

I respect you, Kat, and always have, but frankly, this level of snide superiority was unnecessary. Where did I say ANY of that? I just mentioned the effects, that's all. I didn't endorse them, and never would. I was merely acknowledging the fact that the vast majority of men are mollified or otherwise affected by bare breasts. Mardi Gras wouldn't be half the draw that it is for typical men without that effect, and Girls Gone Wild would still be operating out of that asshole's basement instead of all over Comedy Central when I'm trying to catch up on all the seasons of South Park I missed while I was three years without cable in North Dakota.

Now, may please be exonerated from your charge of man-bashing and get on with my life until you have sufficient evidence from my posting history to make such a claim (short answer: you don't)?

See? I can overreact, too.

Love, I'm not the one who asserted bare breasts = rise in traffic accidents from ogling men.

I always like this reasoning. "Men are incapable of controlling themselves and acting like adults, so women should be restricted."

Incidentally, it's the exact same reasoning used in countries that force women to cover themselves completely.

Are you going to scold Dem too?

I wonder how many women would actually do this though?

Probably not many at first.

But it would probably slowly get more normal and eventually it would be no big deal.

I always like this reasoning. "Men are incapable of controlling themselves and acting like adults, so women should be restricted."

I think its more to do with the idea of general inappropriateness rather than danger of predatory men.

As for "what those render the women", I assume you're talking about the various post-partum stretching, sagging, and the like?

No, something even more disturbing and humiliating: motherhood.

No, something even more disturbing and humiliating: motherhood.

Heh. I should have known. *bows to your extreme cleverness*

There is no point to the anti nudity laws, hell, if I had it my way, people in public would be able to be bottomless as well. The government will not tell me what is right or not to wear.

Heh. I should have known. *bows to your extreme cleverness*

That's not what I usually want guys bowing to, but as long as you're down there...

I think its more to do with the idea of general inappropriateness rather than danger of predatory men.

The reasoning I was replying to was essentially "Men will stare and get in traffic accidents if women go topless."

Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone provide a rational reason for women's nipples being considered inappropriate while men's are not.

Every time this topic comes up, the usual explanations are either "Women's nippless are inherently sexual so we have to cover them up but men's nipples aren't (and I've been saddened by the number of people who seem to think that men can not get sexual pleasure out of nipple play)!!!!" or "Men will stare and have uncontrollable reactions to seeing da boobies. Cover them up!!!!"

Frankly, I'm not satisfied that either makes any sense at all. So I'm waiting for something better.

Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone provide a rational reason for women's nipples being considered inappropriate while men's are not.


That's because, as I said, there is no rational reason behind it. It's just something about our culture that everyone has been conditioned into for centuries.

That's because, as I said, there is no rational reason behind it. It's just something about our culture that everyone has been conditioned into for centuries.

That, to me, is like saying sexuality in general is a construct of our culture and is not inherently natural at all. If that was the case, how is it that we are genetically predisposed to the opposite (or in some cases, the same) sex? You can throw that around all you want.

Love, I'm not the one who asserted bare breasts = rise in traffic accidents from ogling men.

Tell me it wouldn't happen. Do that without self-deception or laughing, and I'll believe you.

Come on, Kat, if I were being a complete pig, I could see you reacting like this, but most of this is tongue-in-cheek, and the bit that isn't is patently true.

Are you going to scold Dem too?

Who scolded? I pointed out that you're overreacting. If that's a scolding, then Mods are all de facto parents.

Wait....

I always like this reasoning. "Men are incapable of controlling themselves and acting like adults, so women should be restricted."

Incidentally, it's the exact same reasoning used in countries that force women to cover themselves completely.

Okay, massive hyperbole and ginormous strawman. I never said that men are incapable of self-control. I'm saying that after a certain adjustment period, during which you must admit that there'd be some serious ogling going on, we'd all get used to it. Ryadn (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13830082&postcount=51) was able to put that together. The complete overreaction is likening my post to justifying the insane shit that the Taliban and Shariya think about women.

Look, it's really very simple. We live in a society that has, for whatever reason, sexualized/fetishized human milk glands. It's silly, but there it is. Now, add to that a law that allows women to go topless like men and the critical mass of women it would take to make use of that law for it not to be something that makes the news. THAT time period, the adjustment from risqué to run-of-the-mill, would see the oglers in our society highly distracted.

Also, I would add that seeing a man with a nice chest out running with no shirt on is rather distracting when driving a car. This goes both ways, you know.

Of course it does. It's just that women seem to be far more subtle about it, or at least make that effort. I never said the ERs would be filled exclusively with men, but since men already have toplessness, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that.

The reasoning I was replying to was essentially "Men will stare and get in traffic accidents if women go topless."

A statement made in concern for traffic flow for a period of adjustment, not the imposition of Shariya Law. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone provide a rational reason for women's nipples being considered inappropriate while men's are not.

THERE ISN'T ONE! Why would you demand a rational explanation for something that, by it's very nature, is completely irrational? It's like you're looking in a dark, windowless basement during a power failure at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. I don't think anyone in this thread claimed that this unequal practice was rational.

Every time this topic comes up, the usual explanations are either "Women's nippless are inherently sexual so we have to cover them up but men's nipples aren't (and I've been saddened by the number of people who seem to think that men can not get sexual pleasure out of nipple play)!!!!" or "Men will stare and have uncontrollable reactions to seeing da boobies. Cover them up!!!!"

I never said that. You're lumping, and while that's easy, it weakens your argument.

Frankly, I'm not satisfied that either makes any sense at all. So I'm waiting for something better.

And so shall we all wait, and likely for a long, long time.

I find big fat guys with hairy backs walking around topless to be very distracting. But no more than dogs shitting on the sidewalk, or kids giving taxi drivers the finger, or those huge bright screens screaming adverts during rush hour.

I find big fat guys with hairy backs walking around topless to be very distracting. But no more than dogs shitting on the sidewalk, or kids giving taxi drivers the finger, or those huge bright screens screaming adverts during rush hour.

Exactly. I made essentially that same point, too -- for all the good it did me.

Tell me it wouldn't happen. Do that without self-deception or laughing, and I'll believe you.

Come on, Kat, if I were being a complete pig, I could see you reacting like this, but most of this is tongue-in-cheek, and the bit that isn't is patently true.



Who scolded? I pointed out that you're overreacting. If that's a scolding, then Mods are all de facto parents.

Wait....



Okay, massive hyperbole and ginormous strawman. I never said that men are incapable of self-control. I'm saying that after a certain adjustment period, during which you must admit that there'd be some serious ogling going on, we'd all get used to it. Ryadn (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13830082&postcount=51) was able to put that together. The complete overreaction is likening my post to justifying the insane shit that the Taliban and Shariya think about women.

Look, it's really very simple. We live in a society that has, for whatever reason, sexualized/fetishized human milk glands. It's silly, but there it is. Now, add to that a law that allows women to go topless like men and the critical mass of women it would take to make use of that law for it not to be something that makes the news. THAT time period, the adjustment from risqué to run-of-the-mill, would see the oglers in our society highly distracted.



Of course it does. It's just that women seem to be far more subtle about it, or at least make that effort. I never said the ERs would be filled exclusively with men, but since men already have toplessness, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that.

So essentially, two people reacting in precisely the same way to the identical words that you put out there, who are not noobs, who are reasonably well-educated, are overreacting when they say men have more self-control than to cause traffic accidents because of da boobies, which is the situation you posited and then supported with "tell me it wouldn't happen".

Got it.
And it wouldn't happen.

So essentially, two people reacting in precisely the same way to the identical words that you put out there, who are not noobs, who are reasonably well-educated, are overreacting when they say men have more self-control than to cause traffic accidents because of da boobies, which is the situation you posited.

Got it.

And the snideness continues -- I have to ask why?

Did I say ALL MEN? No. Not ever, not once.

And I'm sorry, but no, two "non-n00b" posters overreacting does not a justified overreaction make, and you know it.

I'm sorry if I touched a nerve, but you've not even touched the assertion that, despite some folks notion of an egalitarian society filled with enlightened people, there would be ogling-caused accidents on the day toplessness is made legal across the nation.

I never said that it was funny, or a good thing, or redeeming in any way. I based it on the undeniable and nearly ubiquitous presence of boob (the ogler)-on-boob (the gland) sexualization in our society.

In fact, I'll go one further. I think virtually EVERYONE, regardless of sexual orientation (or even age) would be distracted for a little while at the sheer novelty of accepted/legal female toplessness. But -- one more time -- we would all get used to it.

That's because, as I said, there is no rational reason behind it. It's just something about our culture that everyone has been conditioned into for centuries.

Then there's no reason for it to be in law.


That, to me, is like saying sexuality in general is a construct of our culture and is not inherently natural at all.

How so?


Okay, massive hyperbole and ginormous strawman. I never said that men are incapable of self-control.

No, just that they'd get in lots of traffic accidents because they wouldn't be able to handle seeing breasts.

Look, it's really very simple. We live in a society that has, for whatever reason, sexualized/fetishized human milk glands.

Or, rather, nipples on a woman.

It's silly, but there it is. Now, add to that a law that allows women to go topless like men and the critical mass of women it would take to make use of that law for it not to be something that makes the news. THAT time period, the adjustment from risqué to run-of-the-mill, would see the oglers in our society highly distracted.

In other words, they wouldn't be able to concentrate on what they were doing - ie. lack of self-control.

Of course it does. It's just that women seem to be far more subtle about it, or at least make that effort. I never said the ERs would be filled exclusively with men, but since men already have toplessness, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that.

I would say that the fact that men have toplessness and women ogle them just fine without constantly getting wrecks implies that men would also handle it.

THERE ISN'T ONE! Why would you demand a rational explanation for something that, by it's very nature, is completely irrational? It's like you're looking in a dark, windowless basement during a power failure at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. I don't think anyone in this thread claimed that this unequal practice was rational.

I expect a rational reason for any restriction placed into law. If there isn't one, the law should be discarded.

I never said that. You're lumping, and while that's easy, it weakens your argument.


Yes, you did. You said that men would get in more accidents because boobs were exposed. In other words, men would have reactions they couldn't control that would cause them to be dangerous.

Furthermore, since you acknowledge that women ogle hot men with their shirts off, you imply that women somehow inherently have more such self-control than men.

No, just that they'd get in lots of traffic accidents because they wouldn't be able to handle seeing breasts.

Because they would. Why is this so hard to understand without assuming I'm taking the same stance as the Taliban? There'd be a day or two -- a week, tops -- where men, and probably everyone, would have to adjust. IN that period, you'd get gawkers. Gawkers would be distracted, and distracted drivers have more accidents.

Or, rather, nipples on a woman.

Nah, it's the whole thing. The nipples are the icing on that metaphorical cake.

In other words, they wouldn't be able to concentrate on what they were doing - ie. lack of self-control.

Tell me, how much self-control do you exhibit when something you're not used to and never see suddenly becomes ubiquitous? And what if that thing was, for better or worse, also sexually arousing? You're basically implying that it wouldn't distract you for a moment, and I call bullshit.

I would say that the fact that men have toplessness and women ogle them just fine without constantly getting wrecks implies that men would also handle it.

And they could. After about a week or less of getting used to it. I bolded that because that's where you seem to miss my point.

Guess why women can ogle just fine? Because male toplessness is the norm. I'm seriously having a great deal of difficulty with how you're not getting the difference between "happens all the time" and "has never happened before". Ever see a meteor, tornado, lightning strike, or other relatively rare phenomena (for your area) without glancing longer than you might if it was just raining beyond your windshield?

I expect a rational reason for any restriction placed into law. If there isn't one, the law should be discarded.

I agree with you completely on this point. However, "should" in this country is really a subjective thing. Getting legislation to turn "should" into "ought" or removing legislation that prevents "ought" from becoming "should" is a lengthy process.

Yes, you did. You said that men would get in more accidents because boobs were exposed. In other words, men would have reactions they couldn't control that would cause them to be dangerous.

Yup. I sure did. They'd have a similar reaction to a rain of frogs or a Vancouver bus ceding the right of way.

Furthermore, since you acknowledge that women ogle hot men with their shirts off, you imply that women somehow inherently have more such self-control than men.

Again, ubiquity breeds acceptance, which breeds "meh" -- or at the very least a far more subtle appreciation. I don't know how many times I'll have to make this point, but I'll keep it up as long as you refuse to acknowledge it.

Tell me it wouldn't happen. Do that without self-deception or laughing, and I'll believe you.
I say we experiment with this...

under controlled conditions of course.

I am now looking for some women to volunteer to live with me and they must be completelly topless while at home. and we'll see if there is any impact to my day to day activities...

any ladies out there willing to volunteer? :D

Because they would. Why is this so hard to understand without assuming I'm taking the same stance as the Taliban? There'd be a day or two -- a week, tops -- where men, and probably everyone, would have to adjust. IN that period, you'd get gawkers. Gawkers would be distracted, and distracted drivers have more accidents.

Yet you ignore the fact that there are gawkers when a good looking man goes out without his shirt on. But do we see lots of accidents caused by them?

Nah, it's the whole thing. The nipples are the icing on that metaphorical cake.

The nipples are the only part that legally has to be covered. When a woman wears a revealing dress that reveals half of her breast, are there traffic accidents everywhere she goes?

Tell me, how much self-control do you exhibit when something you're not used to and never see suddenly becomes ubiquitous? And what if that thing was, for better or worse, also sexually arousing? You're basically implying that it wouldn't distract you for a moment, and I call bullshit.

I'm not saying it wouldn't distract me at all. I'm saying it wouldn't cause me to get in a traffic accident. I've had the urge to gawk at something quite often when I'm driving. I choose not to. If someone is with me, I might ask them for more detail than I can take in while driving.

And they could. After about a week or less of getting used to it. I bolded that because that's where you seem to miss my point.

It's irrelevant. The idea that a man cannot control himself if he sees breasts right now is what we are discussing.

Guess why women can ogle just fine? Because male toplessness is the norm.

Ah, so it's isn't the ogling that causes problems.

Then a man ogling a topless woman won't cause problems either.

Again, ubiquity breeds acceptance, which breeds "meh" -- or at the very least a far more subtle appreciation. I don't know how many times I'll have to make this point, but I'll keep it up as long as you refuse to acknowledge it.

If ogling is a problem - a distraction that will cause accidents, I don't see how it matters what is being ogled or how common it is. The fact that I quite often see topless men doesn't make one I want to look at any less distracting.

Yet you ignore the fact that there are gawkers when a good looking man goes out without his shirt on. But do we see lots of accidents caused by them?

*sigh* I've done all I can do. If you can't understand the role novelty is playing in my point, I can neither help you to understand it nor see the gain in continuing to repeat it.

The nipples are the only part that legally has to be covered. When a woman wears a revealing dress that reveals half of her breast, are there traffic accidents everywhere she goes?

How many of those do you see on a regular basis outside of Vegas, LA or NYC, and even then in or near the tonier clubs/neighborhoods? She'd get gawkers if she walked down the street in Bismarck, and distracted drivers are more likely to have accidents. Everywhere she goes? Probably not, but the likelihood increases.

Good Lord, are you this fractious in real life?

I'm not saying it wouldn't distract me at all.

Stop right there. So it would distract you? Okay, then. You are then more likely to miss something that might lead to an accident. Since that's just you, and there are something like 100 million cars in the country in regular use, is it not possible to say that the rate of accidents would increase?

I'm saying it wouldn't cause me to get in a traffic accident. I've had the urge to gawk at something quite often when I'm driving. I choose not to. If someone is with me, I might ask them for more detail than I can take in while driving.

I commend you for your vigilance (and your ability to predict the future). Would that all US drivers were so careful. You and I both know they're not.

It's irrelevant. The idea that a man cannot control himself if he sees breasts right now is what we are discussing.

No, that's what YOU are discussing. My original post on this topic included a time period for adjustment. Also, "cannot control himself" and "distracted" are two very different things, as you have already admitted when you said you'd be distracted.

Ah, so it's isn't the ogling that causes problems.

It's the distraction which is a direct result of the ogling that would cause problems.

Then a man ogling a topless woman won't cause problems either.

*facepalm* Oy veh. One last time: novelty.

If ogling is a problem - a distraction that will cause accidents, I don't see how it matters what is being ogled or how common it is. The fact that I quite often see topless men doesn't make one I want to look at any less distracting.

Say it with me: novelty. The fact that you're determined to ignore this point or gloss it over or in whatever way fail to realize that this is what I'm talking about is indicative of some hidden need to present some kind of agenda the nature of which I can only guess. I don't know why you seem to be taking this on as some kind of militant feminist offense that I've committed by merely stating the obvious. I also don't know how you've managed to go your whole life without ever meeting even one heterosexual man or lesbian who'd cast an overlong glance at some normally-covered-and-now-revealed bit of female loveliness.

Neither of those concerns matter, however. You believe what you want, and will I. All I'm saying is that it would be a bad day to be an auto insurance claims rep when that legislation is passed. It'll be bad to be a pilot, too, as pigs will be cluttering air traffic patterns.

Okay, I'm not quite sure why everyone's jumping down Intangelon's throat, but I think his assessment of what realistically might happen has somehow been turned, but some people, into what he thinks the world should be.

I think it's outdated, barbaric and sexist to have two sets of rules governing clothing. I know that in societies that don't have this double standard there are few if any problems with women going topless.

I also know, however, that in the U.S. we don't live in that kind of society. To expect that a change in law on that scale would not produce any backlash or reaction is ridiculous.

I've heard plenty of accounts from nudist colonies about the adjustment period people go through when they first join. When you've grown up in a society where you don't generally see women naked all of the time, it's going to provoke some physical reactions for awhile. As Intangelon said, eventually people would get used to it and those reactions would subside. But to pretend they'd never be there is silly. If I walked out my door tomorrow and none of the men were wearing pants, I'd be doing a lot of staring. I don't think there's any particular reason why they should HAVE to, but I would still be shocked for awhile, and I imagine their dangly bits on display would cause quite as many accidents as topless women would.

No, that's what YOU are discussing. My original post on this topic included a time period for adjustment. Also, "cannot control himself" and "distracted" are two very different things, as you have already admitted when you said you'd be distracted.

Indeed they are. And "distracted" and "ogling to the point one gets in an accident" are also two different things. The latter amounts to "cannot control himself".

It's the distraction which is a direct result of the ogling that would cause problems.

Then all ogling should be an equal problem. Novelty has nothing to do with it.

Say it with me: novelty.

Again, irrelevant. As you said, the problem is the distraction caused by ogling. Thus, a woman ogling a man would present exactly the same amount of danger as a man ogling a woman.

I also don't know how you've managed to go your whole life without ever meeting even one heterosexual man or lesbian who'd cast an overlong glance at some normally-covered-and-now-revealed bit of female loveliness.

Are you kidding me? Under the right circumstances, I'd probably cast an overlong glance at some revealed boobies - just as I cast some pretty long "glances" at hot topless guys running down the street.

But I wouldn't be getting in accidents left and right because the boobies wouldn't be as important as, you know, driving the car.

I also know, however, that in the U.S. we don't live in that kind of society. To expect that a change in law on that scale would not produce any backlash or reaction is ridiculous.

Oh, there'd be plenty of backlash and reaction. There'd be protesters on the streets and probably assholes who would act like a woman who went out topless deserved to be raped.

But I don't think we'd suddenly have car accidents everywhere because men just couldn't keep their eyes on the road.

I've heard plenty of accounts from nudist colonies about the adjustment period people go through when they first join. When you've grown up in a society where you don't generally see women naked all of the time, it's going to provoke some physical reactions for awhile. As Intangelon said, eventually people would get used to it and those reactions would subside. But to pretend they'd never be there is silly. If I walked out my door tomorrow and none of the men were wearing pants, I'd be doing a lot of staring. I don't think there's any particular reason why they should HAVE to, but I would still be shocked for awhile, and I imagine their dangly bits on display would cause quite as many accidents as topless women would.

Again, I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be reactions. I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be staring.

I am arguing that men in general are not so immature that they'd all be running cars into things because they had to stare. Women would be walking around topless all over the place. Men could stare in a parked car or when they got out of the vehicle.

And it isn't as if it would happen unexpectedly. Everyone would know if the law had been overturned. It would be all over the news. It's not like topless women would be jumping at the car yelling "BOO!" and surprising men with no idea that they might possible see boobies that day.

Solution: if nudity will cause more car accidents, remove human controlled cars :)

Solution: if nudity will cause more car accidents, remove human controlled cars :)

Remove humans.:)

Remove humans.:)

All Hail our nude Robotic overlords!

All Hail our nude Robotic overlords!

You get my quote of the day award.:p

Indeed they are. And "distracted" and "ogling to the point one gets in an accident" are also two different things. The latter amounts to "cannot control himself".

"Distracted" MEANS more likely to get into an accident. The difference as to whether that distraction is an attractive figure, putting on makeup, eating lunch, using a cell phone or hearing bad news on the radio makes no matter.

Okay.

Perhaps "ogling" is the wrong word. How about if I back off that terminology and stick with "distracted". Will that satisfy your rhetorical bloodlust?

Then all ogling should be an equal problem. Novelty has nothing to do with it.

All right, I've had it. At this point you're being deliberately obtuse. Novelty has EVERYTHING to do with it. We've been seeing naked male chests in Western society since God invented the fig leaf, okay? If female toplessness were no big deal, then Lady Godiva would not be a name everyone knows (and we'd not have the name gracing some mediocre and overpriced chocolates). If it were no big deal, Girls Gone Wild, Mardi Gras and wet t-shirt contests would be niche fetishes and not de rigeur sexual titillation (no pun intended).

You're confusing the way you think the world should be with the way it is. Until you admit that, we're gonna keep going 'round this maypole until we both faint.

Again, irrelevant. As you said, the problem is the distraction caused by ogling. Thus, a woman ogling a man would present exactly the same amount of danger as a man ogling a woman.

Again, not irrelevant, but central. There is no problem with female distraction from male chests because they're all over the damned place from Abercrombie and Nike billboards to fat ass tourists at the beach. If exposed female chests weren't a novelty, flashing would be pointless. It is far from pointless, as any mouth-breathing Tom Leykis listener will attest.

Are you kidding me? Under the right circumstances, I'd probably cast an overlong glance at some revealed boobies - just as I cast some pretty long "glances" at hot topless guys running down the street.

Okay, but since male shirtlessness is perfectly acceptable now, where's the sense of novelty and surprise? Not there. No need to stare for any longer than it takes to rank said chest in the pantheon of nice chests you've already seen out on the streets, parks or beaches. What's that, a second, tops?

But I wouldn't be getting in accidents left and right because the boobies wouldn't be as important as, you know, driving the car.

Good for you! Are you everyone? Not no, but hell no, no matter how much you might wish it to be so. You and I BOTH know that this is simply not true for a large swath of drivers out there. To pretend that all, or even HALF of all drivers are indistractible driving aces is approaching the zenith of disingenuousness.

Oh, there'd be plenty of backlash and reaction. There'd be protesters on the streets and probably assholes who would act like a woman who went out topless deserved to be raped.

Undoubtedly. Which is probably part of what keeps women in those areas where it IS legal from taking advantage of the law. The other part might be the ogling. ;)

But I don't think we'd suddenly have car accidents everywhere because men just couldn't keep their eyes on the road.

Well, that's what you think. Others think differently. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The difference is, I'm not going to do it in a manner that makes me come off as somehow superior to you. I wonder if you'll do the same?

Again, I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be reactions. I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be staring.

And you know this how? Crystal ball? Nudity research?

I am arguing that men in general are not so immature that they'd all be running cars into things because they had to stare. Women would be walking around topless all over the place. Men could stare in a parked car or when they got out of the vehicle.

Where did I say that ALL men would have accidents? Good Lord, it's like you're trying to demonize anyone for making a lighthearted point about what might happen were breasts suddenly allowed out to play. You're speaking in absolutes. I'm saying the accident rate would very likely rise for a week, tops. I'm counting on male nature, you're counting on all men being paragons.

Which is more likely: no men stare and no accidents happen over the baseline, or even a small percentage are distracted for long enough to plow into the car in front of them?

And it isn't as if it would happen unexpectedly. Everyone would know if the law had been overturned. It would be all over the news. It's not like topless women would be jumping at the car yelling "BOO!" and surprising men with no idea that they might possible see boobies that day.

Tell me, have you ever heard the phrase "I knew it was coming, but I wasn't prepared for the full reality of it"? I have. Again, human nature. If I tell you a tornado is coming with 30+ minutes of warning, is it still going to be surprising to see it in your front yard? Bet your ass. When the 55mph National Speed Limit was repealed in 1987, we all had warning, but seeing the 65mph signs when I'd had 55 for most of my life was still a surprise.

Again, your posit works in a perfect world where all men aren't slaves to their libidos (libidi?). Hell, I have enough libidinous close relatives to prove that's not true.

You've successfully made a mountain out of a molehill. I have no idea why, but there it is.

it's Just Flab People, Odds Are You See It Every Day In The Mirror.this.

"Distracted" MEANS more likely to get into an accident. The difference as to whether that distraction is an attractive figure, putting on makeup, eating lunch, using a cell phone or hearing bad news on the radio makes no matter.

Indeed. Which is why it is silly to act as if any single one of them is going to cause a steep increase in accidents.

All right, I've had it. At this point you're being deliberately obtuse. Novelty has EVERYTHING to do with it.

If ogling = distraction, then any ogling=distraction. Me ogling a man is a distraction. It would cause exactly the same problems as a man ogling a woman.

The problem is not the novelty. It's the staring at something other than the road.

We've been seeing naked male chests in Western society since God invented the fig leaf, okay?

....which doesn't make them any less of a distraction if someone is staring at one.

Again, not irrelevant, but central. There is no problem with female distraction from male chests because they're all over the damned place from Abercrombie and Nike billboards to fat ass tourists at the beach.

So let me get this straight. If you are staring at something that you've seen before, instead of the road, you're not going to get in an accident.

But if it's something you're not used to seeing, an accident is very likely.

Have I got that straight?

Okay, but since male shirtlessness is perfectly acceptable now, where's the sense of novelty and surprise? Not there. No need to stare for any longer than it takes to rank said chest in the pantheon of nice chests you've already seen out on the streets, parks or beaches. What's that, a second, tops?

You can't get a good look in a second. You definitely can't ogle in a second. When a woman checks out a man, she doesn't spend any less time doing it than when the roles are reversed.

Well, that's what you think. Others think differently. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The difference is, I'm not going to do it in a manner that makes me come off as somehow superior to you. I wonder if you'll do the same?

You're the only one talking about superiority here.

Where did I say that ALL men would have accidents?

Where did I insinuate that you had?

Again, your posit works in a perfect world where all men aren't slaves to their libidos (libidi?). Hell, I have enough libidinous close relatives to prove that's not true.

The problem is that your posit - this idea that we'd see any kind of noticeable increase in car accidents - relies on the assumption that most men are slaves to their libidos.

In light of recent posts, i'll just say that if i were a dog, i might not drive the cars i barked at.
But to be more specific, work fascinates me. I could watch it for hours.

In light of recent posts, i'll just say that if i were a dog, i might not drive the cars i barked at.
But to be more specific, work fascinates me. I could watch it for hours.

...are you a bouncer at a strip club or something?

...are you a bouncer at a strip club or something?Nah.
Just had the first quote reference in my head all day, and ran across this thread here tonight in whatever significance there is in the appearance of coincidence.
The second quote means i, like many guys, don't have much of a problem watching girls "workin' it" :p
I have had just about completely normal conversations with naked strangers before, though, and many of them were what you could consider sexy in many of the superficial regards.

Indeed. Which is why it is silly to act as if any single one of them is going to cause a steep increase in accidents.

Not if there's a new distraction. Adding one more to the list increases the likelihood of accidents. That's all.

If ogling = distraction, then any ogling=distraction. Me ogling a man is a distraction. It would cause exactly the same problems as a man ogling a woman.

Okay, first off, I've already conceded that "ogle" was the wrong verb. If you're going to insist on using it after I've already agreed that it was wrong of me to use, this debate is over.

Secondly, you've missed (yet again) the novelty point.

The problem is not the novelty. It's the staring at something other than the road.

And the goalposts shift.

The problem would be the novelty. I don't know how many times I've said it or how many more I will.

So let me get this straight. If you are staring at something that you've seen before, instead of the road, you're not going to get in an accident.

But if it's something you're not used to seeing, an accident is very likely.

Have I got that straight?

Nope. You seem to enjoy getting things deliberately crooked. Yes, staring at anything besides the road is a bad idea. The likelihood that something you're not used to seeing or have never seen will distract you is much higher than that of seeing something you see all the time.

You can't get a good look in a second. You definitely can't ogle in a second. When a woman checks out a man, she doesn't spend any less time doing it than when the roles are reversed.

Again with the ogle. And honey, if you can't get a good look in a second, you're not trying hard enough.

You're the only one talking about superiority here.

Oh -- must I actually mention it in order for it to be expressed? You've been coming on like I'm King Chauvinist and you're the Great Liberator since this tête-a-tête started.

Where did I insinuate that you had?

You mean besides every time you used the phrase "all men" when trying to put words into my posts?

The problem is that your posit - this idea that we'd see any kind of noticeable increase in car accidents - relies on the assumption that most men are slaves to their libidos.

That's why my posit makes more sense than yours. It's realistic.

Most men are slaves to their libidos; it's a matter of degree. The fact that many deal with it more subtly than others is merely a function of each man's ability or desire to be subtle (or obvious), or to care about how it's expressed. I know you'll disagree, so I'll just stop there.

I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted

No, why?

It seems rather arbitrary to me.

No, why?

It seems rather arbitrary to me.
Cause you'll see a hot girl while driving, go *PING* hit a pole, fly out of the car, and poke someone's eye out.

I agree with you. I hate shoes too. In fact, as I sit in my office, typing this post, I have removed my flip-flops and airing my feet out for the world to see. :p

The point is business owners should have the right to choose what they deem appropriate dress for their establishment, but who is the government to say the same body parts can't be shown on men and women?

But you knew that already. ;)

I hate socks. GRR. They always lump in my feet so it hurts when I walk. Thank GOD for summer!

I must say, this does seem a deliberate attempt to argue for arguments sake by Dem.

There is a significant difference between the level of interest women have in a man's chest and interest men have in womens breasts. I wont try to go in to any deep philisophical argument, or try to work on some deep genetic reasoning. Let's follow the money.
There is a huge industry in providing pictures of breasts. The soft porn industry is worth Billions. Considering the degree of interest men have in boobs, and the amount spent on it, it is not unreasonable to suggest that if they were on the street to be looked at for free, some men would do so.

People don't expect accidents to happen. People look at their car radio when changing channel' eat food, apply make up, talk on mobiles, etc, all when driving and think it wont be a problem. The same will happen with staring at naked breasts. He will stare at them, thinking he has the driving under control, until the crunch.

It doesn't need to be many men. Less than 1% would still cause a sharp spike in car accident statistics.

I don't have a problem with the idea of women being able to go topless, though if I had to choose, I'd probably choose nobody going topless.

If male chests had the same effect on heterosexual women as female chests have on heterosexual men, either both could go topless or neither would.*giggles at the idea of male chests having the same effect on heterosexual men as do female chests*

There is a significant difference between the level of interest women have in a man's chest and interest men have in womens breasts.
And you know this HOW?

Let's follow the money.
There is a huge industry in providing pictures of breasts. The soft porn industry is worth Billions. Considering the degree of interest men have in boobs, and the amount spent on it, it is not unreasonable to suggest that if they were on the street to be looked at for free, some men would do so.
And who runs this industry, please?
No, better yet -- what sort of a society is the United States, underneath it all? Is it a matriarchy or a patriarchy?


People don't expect accidents to happen. People look at their car radio when changing channel' eat food, apply make up, talk on mobiles, etc, all when driving and think it wont be a problem. The same will happen with staring at naked breasts. He will stare at them, thinking he has the driving under control, until the crunch.
So yes, you are saying a man does not have the willpower to tear his eyes away from the boobies.

It doesn't need to be many men. Less than 1% would still cause a sharp spike in car accident statistics.
So, you are still saying that men have not got the willpower to drag their eyes away from the almighty breasts.

Perhaps our next female presidential candidate should campaign completely nude. Then men would not be able to concentrate on the other candidates' platforms and would only remember her when going to the polling place....


You DO realize that that's complete rubbish, right?

Now..... to prove that men are not slaves to their libido....
Show me where homosexual men have had more car accidents while viewing bare-chested men walking around topless.

And honestly, I don't know what I find more disturbing -- that people are saying Dem and I are being argumentative, or that men are defending the idea that men cannot think in the presence of topless women.

No, why?

It seems rather arbitrary to me.
Not looking where you're going and having an... Accident ;)

... why no toplessness for women only?

Because of the same BS artists who have ruined this planet for thousands of years.

"In the Bullshit Department, a businessman can't hold a candle to a clergyman. 'Cause I gotta tell you the truth, folks. When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told." -- George Carlin

Then there's no reason for it to be in law.


If you accept this then you must accept that there is no reason why people can't walk down the street completely naked.

If you accept this then you must accept that there is no reason why people can't walk down the street completely naked.
Well, with some people being as clumsy as they are....

Perhaps our next female presidential candidate should campaign completely nude. Then men would not be able to concentrate on the other candidates' platforms and would only remember her when going to the polling place....

I think this could work. Kat, if you run, I'll be your campaign manager.

I'm amazed at how many people here are saying something to the effect of, "The only difference between mens' and womens' chests is size."

Not true, according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast#Sexual_role

Whether or not you choose to accept it, female breasts are and always have been sexual in nature. Sure, we can eventually dissociate them with sexuality, like some places in Africa, but what's the point? Is it really worth it to downplay something like that just so women can feel that they're "equal"? Here's a tip, ladies: Being special doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Perhaps our next female presidential candidate should campaign completely nude. Then men would not be able to concentrate on the other candidates' platforms and would only remember her when going to the polling place....

will admit Kat... it would make the adds and debates alot more interesting. :p

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.

Less discussing, and more pictures.



:p

I was thinking because it would show one of their private parts

I was thinking because it would show one of their private parts

Um, what?

Cause you'll see a hot girl while driving, go *PING* hit a pole, fly out of the car, and poke someone's eye out.

If you can tell whether or not someone's wearing pants while you're both in separate cars, you're already a massive danger on the road, 'cause you've got to be halfway out of your window.

actually, female breasts are a distraction. not only because they are sexually arousing, but because they move... they bounce. our hunter genes makes our eyes focus on objects that move. that's why men look at breasts and asses (both 'jiggle') it's not that we're pigs, but our genes makes us stare.

the smaller the breasts, the less jiggle and thus less chances of us staring. :D

people stare at the stomach and flabby areas of overweight people for the same reason. they jiggle and thus attract our eyes.

yup. and if they we're shiny too, then forget it! :p

If you accept this then you must accept that there is no reason why people can't walk down the street completely naked.

For the most part, that's true. I could see it being banned in places where you actually sit down for hygeine reasons, but not if you're just walking around in your front yard or something. Of course, this could also be said of requiring a shirt (ie. gyms that don't let anyone go topless because they get the equipment all nasty).

.....I do love men's chests

In some places neither are allowed to, in some places both are allowed to, in some places they are allowed to walk around buck naked.

Your local laws may vary.

Haulover Beach, Miami, Florida. A wonderful place to relax and bare it all. There need to be more places like that. :)

.....I do love men's chests

I agree with you so much. There´s nothing better than to lay down beside your man, lean in and rest your head on his chest. I also enjoy listening to them speak while my ear is pressed against the center of their chest, their voices soothe me that way.

Love, I'm not the one who asserted bare breasts = rise in traffic accidents from ogling men.

Many years ago when I was younger (sigh) I almost ran off the road while intently watching the fine ass of a young lady with painted on white jeans who was walking along the road. I shudder to think of what might have happened if she had also been topless. Oh, my wife who was with me at the time eventually forgave me but she has never forgotten the incident.

That's because, as I said, there is no rational reason behind it. It's just something about our culture that everyone has been conditioned into for centuries.

There have been and still are cultures where women go topless.

No, why?

It seems rather arbitrary to me.

The restrictions against going bottomless are because of sanitary concerns. Why do you think people in nudist communities carry towels to sit on? The answer is to let everyone go nude but make them carry a towel to sit on. NODS; that settles it

So yes, you are saying a man does not have the willpower to tear his eyes away from the boobies.

Depends on which head is in control of him at the time. :D couldn't resist that one Kat

There have been and still are cultures where women go topless.

I never said anything to the contrary, I'm talking about our culture, not every culture.

I don't think you and Dem are being argumentative, Kat. I think you're trying to place absolutes where none were offered. I said there'd be a brief surge (a week, tops) of accidents from the sheer novelty of those attracted to bare female chests seeing them out in the open en masse.

Your homosexual example fails in the same way that the hetero female example fails -- neither are novelties, are they? Gay men have been able to accustom themselves to looking at bared male chests for, well, practically forever as far as Western civilization is concerned. Any distraction caused by bared male chests is already accounted for in the baseline for distractions.

Once more, I never said all men would be riveted to the boobies, unable to control themselves. I'm saying that many, likely a majority, would be distracted at levels above the baseline while they adjusted to the novelty. More distractions mean more accidents, ask the NTSB or IIHS. So I conclude that the accident rates would spike for a week. Period. The end. Men aren't all pigs, women and gays gawk too, it's all in there.

Now can we lay this to rest, or is there some hidden agenda I'm debating against that nobody's told me about?

There have been and still are cultures where women go topless.

Can't decide if this would be a good thing or a bad thing...

Disturbing imagery. (http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/tempalbum/?action=view&current=Big_And_Retarded.jpg)

Even more disturbing imagery. (http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/tempalbum/?action=view&current=Bigguns820.jpg)

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.

As a 16 year old male, I speak for my fellow 16 year old males when I say that I am a supporter of the "topless women" proposal.

Also I am not against female nudity. I dont think there can be too much of it.

But there is a difference between the male and female chest. The female chest (breast) is used for reproduction. That is how it becomes sexual. The male chest isnt.

That is the same reason the genetalia are ment to be covered. They are used for reproduction.

The female chest (breast) is used for reproduction.

It is!?!?! How is it involved in makin' babies?

That is how it becomes sexual.

I seriously hope you aren't talking about breastfeeding. Because if you are, and you find that sexual.....

that's disturbing.

That is the same reason the genetalia are ment to be covered. They are used for reproduction.

How does that follow, anyways? Why does "used for reproduction" equate to "must be covered"? Are you worried the parts are randomly going to engage in reproduction all on their own if you don't put some cloth over them?

I say it's time we start discriminating against uglo-americans. If you're overweight, you're not allowed in public. If you don't look like an airbrushed glamour magazine model, you should be forced to pay a fine for forcing others to see you. If 2/3 of the population wants you to be executed for gross violation of the laws of aesthetics, you get kicked into the incinerator. then ether will only be good-looking people out in public, and they can all go naked.

wait... *checks mirror*... never mind. I just might get sent to the incinerator myself.

I cannot acquiesce.

Yes, you can...

You just choose not to.

It is!?!?! How is it involved in makin' babies?

They are involved in raising the baby. They physically change during pregnancy. For more information consult your primary school teacher or parent

I seriously hope you aren't talking about breastfeeding. Because if you are, and you find that sexual.....

that's disturbing.

licking/fondling the breast has been done many times by many people during sex. Try it yourself you may enjoy it. Many males are interested in the breasts of a woman.

How does that follow, anyways? Why does "used for reproduction" equate to "must be covered"? Are you worried the parts are randomly going to engage in reproduction all on their own if you don't put some cloth over them?

Reproductive organs are different from other organs considering how little you seem to know about reproduction I would again advise you to consult your primary school teacher or parent. As for acting on their own, well penetration isnt always necessary for pregnancy.

In the end society judges what it sees as appropriate and inappropriate. There is a fundamental difference between the male and female chest. This has arisen from sexual dichromatism (sexual differences cause sexual attraction increasing the chance of reproduction and the trait being carried on into future generations)

I'm amazed at how many people here are saying something to the effect of, "The only difference between mens' and womens' chests is size."

Not true, according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast#Sexual_role

Whether or not you choose to accept it, female breasts are and always have been sexual in nature. Sure, we can eventually dissociate them with sexuality, like some places in Africa, but what's the point? Is it really worth it to downplay something like that just so women can feel that they're "equal"? Here's a tip, ladies: Being special doesn't have to be a bad thing.

It does when the "specialness" causes your freedoms to be restricted.
Here: because male testicles are particularly vulnerable to bruising and a great deal of pain when they are struck, either accidentally or purposefully, all males must now walk around wearing these garments to protect themselves:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/91/265903671_a426dc880b.jpg?v=0

And of course women must wear chastity belts to prevent their being taken advantage of by those rascally men who can't avoid raping women who are out on the street unescorted. I mean, after all, you can't blame the men for their actions, they're only men.

will admit Kat... it would make the adds and debates alot more interesting. :p

Probably so.... but for all the wrong reasons, I suspect. :D

There have been and still are cultures where women go topless.

And oddly, it's no big deal there.

Depends on which head is in control of him at the time. :D couldn't resist that one Kat

Silly me, Celtlund-- I assume that the big one is capable of overriding the little one.

I say it's time we start discriminating against uglo-americans. If you're overweight, you're not allowed in public. If you don't look like an airbrushed glamour magazine model, you should be forced to pay a fine for forcing others to see you. If 2/3 of the population wants you to be executed for gross violation of the laws of aesthetics, you get kicked into the incinerator. then ether will only be good-looking people out in public, and they can all go naked.

wait... *checks mirror*... never mind. I just might get sent to the incinerator myself.

*pulls out bow and quiver of arrows, straps on sword.*

I shall defend to the death your imperfections in the minds of shallow people, sir!

*nocks arrow*

Having seen the majority of men who choose to go without shirts, YES.



Well, that's either poor word choice or blatant prejudice against the disabled. And to then wonder about a footless person's problems with athlete's foot? Insensitive.

I hope you meant shoelessness. :p

xD
Perhaps he meant either:
- Footless people are disabled
- Footless people have no problems with athletes foot.
- Footlessness is as legal as shoelessness

They are involved in raising the baby. They physically change during pregnancy. For more information consult your primary school teacher or parent.

Reproductive organs are different from other organs considering how little you seem to know about reproduction I would again advise you to consult your primary school teacher or parent. As for acting on their own, well penetration isnt always necessary for pregnancy.

I don't care what you have to say or how well you say it -- there's no need for the dismissive and arrogant tone. I'm disagreeing with Dem, but keeping it civil. Please endeavor to do the same.

Many males are interested in the breasts of a woman.
Yeah, many males are.

But I know personally, I'm also interested in most of the body of a woman, as well as her personality.

You can't argue that breasts must be covered because men are interesting in them sexually, not when men also find Flat stomachs, long legs, and faces sexy too.

You can't argue that breasts must be covered because men are interesting in them sexually, not when men also find Flat stomachs, long legs, and faces sexy too.And smells. Oh yes. Means wearing facemasks.

Hands. Hands are used in raising babies. Hands are used in MAKING babies. Hands are good for stroking men-parts as well as women-parts.

Ok, everyone: Must wear mittens to protect the children and society from those sexy hands.

Hands. Hands are used in raising babies. Hands are used in MAKING babies. Hands are good for stroking men-parts as well as women-parts.

Ok, everyone: Must wear mittens to protect the children and society from those sexy hands.

*cries* But...but...I love sexy hands!

And, of course, if we're covering any parts with lots of sexual uses, I do believe we're all going to have to wear gags out in public.

And, of course, if we're covering any parts with lots of sexual uses, I do believe we're all going to have to wear gags out in public.

Considering the people I see walking around in public, this isn't a bad thing.

i'm a guy, and i don't even like being naked. but i can't tell you how many times i've been walking around outside and just gotten too hot. i live in a place where this evil monster named humidity resides in the air, making everyone that steps out of there front door immediately a hot and sweaty horrible smelling mess. and as far as i'm concerned, being able to take your shirt off is essential, and i don't even like doing it!!! yet women here still can't. heat exhaustion is a common problem here. and i've seen quite a few girls pass out because of it. and if you want to argue that it's usually men doing things that require that one stay at least somewhat cool, than you've already defeated yourself. if this is your school of thought than you'd have to admit men would already be more adept to dealing with heat because they supposedly do it more. therefore women would be the ones who need to be able to take their shirts off for no other reason than FUNCTIONALITY.

therefore women would be the ones who need to be able to take their shirts off for no other reason than FUNCTIONALITY.
'Boobs', you say?

Intriguing...

'Boobs', you say?

Intriguing...

i'm sorry, but i'm having trouble realizing the intent of that comment. please clarify. as for now i'll run with it and guess humor.

i'm sorry, but i'm having trouble realizing the intent of that comment. please clarify.
I'm just being silly.

They are involved in raising the baby. They physically change during pregnancy. For more information consult your primary school teacher or parent

The woman's belly changes during pregnancy as well. Her ankles likely swell. Her hands are involved in raising the baby.

Does that make those body parts inherently sexual?

licking/fondling the breast has been done many times by many people during sex. Try it yourself you may enjoy it. Many males are interested in the breasts of a woman.

....which has nothing to do with the fact that breastfeeding is not sexual.

When my husband licks my breast, that is sexual. One of these days when a child sucks on it, that action will not be sexual.

So, I'll repeat again: If you find breastfeeding sexual, that is disturbing.

Reproductive organs are different from other organs considering how little you seem to know about reproduction I would again advise you to consult your primary school teacher or parent.

They are only different from other organs in the same way that a heart is different from a bladder. They have different functions.

Meanwhile, your petty insults are cute, but they demonstrate much more about your own ignorance than mine.

As for acting on their own, well penetration isnt always necessary for pregnancy.

No, but very close contact is. A woman isn't going to get pregnant from seeing a man walk around nude or vice versa.

In the end society judges what it sees as appropriate and inappropriate.

Of course it does. But we're talking about what should be in the law and imposed upon people. I don't believe that arbitrary restrictions should be.

There is a fundamental difference between the male and female chest. This has arisen from sexual dichromatism (sexual differences cause sexual attraction increasing the chance of reproduction and the trait being carried on into future generations)

There is a fundamental difference between male and female hips as well. Men generally grow facial hair, while women do not. Men's legs are generally less flexible than women's. And so on...

Should we completely cover up every secondary sex characteristic?

Go sandals. ;)

I get a foot injury every time I walk anywhere in sandals outside.

I get a foot injury every time I walk anywhere in sandals outside.

You need GOOD sandals then....

I like this style:

Mens: http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2966437?cm_cat=datafeed&cm_pla=shoes:men:sandals%2Fslides&cm_ite=teva_'fossil_canyon'_sandal_(men):215426&cm_ven=Froogle&mr:trackingCode=1B177E8F-2C50-DD11-98CA-001422107090&mr:referralID=NA

womens:
http://www.campmor.com/outdoor/gear/Product___14003?CS_003=2477120&CS_010=14003

Important: whether you get the real deal or a knock off, check to make sure the footbed is actually molded to support your foot properly, and that the straps hold your foot firmly to the footbed without either letting your foot twist on the footbed, or cutting into the top of your foot.

I'm just being silly.

gotcha.

They are involved in raising the baby. They physically change during pregnancy. For more information consult your primary school teacher

Please don't. We can't discuss those things. Parents would sue.

licking/fondling the breast has been done many times by many people during sex. Try it yourself you may enjoy it. Many males are interested in the breasts of a woman.

Sucking toes has been done many times by many people during sex. Are you saying bare feet are obscene?

In the end society judges what it sees as appropriate and inappropriate. There is a fundamental difference between the male and female chest. This has arisen from sexual dichromatism (sexual differences cause sexual attraction increasing the chance of reproduction and the trait being carried on into future generations)

There is a fundamental difference between the male and female pelvis, but there aren't any laws in my country about covering up hip bones. Your assumption that social conditions arise solely from biological ones does not fit with numerous aboriginal tribes that have no taboo against female toplessness, or nudity.

The woman's belly changes during pregnancy as well. Yeah, things start to orbit it due the immense gravitational forces it exerts.
<.<
>.>

Not looking where you're going and having an... Accident ;)

I don't get what the difference would be between going topless and going bottomless. What makes one patch of skin okay and the other not so?

I don't get what the difference would be between going topless and going bottomless. What makes one patch of skin okay and the other not so?

Exposed anuses = not too hygienic.
Increased chance of bodily secretions also not so good.

You need GOOD sandals then....

I like this style:

Mens: http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/2966437?cm_cat=datafeed&cm_pla=shoes:men:sandals%2Fslides&cm_ite=teva_'fossil_canyon'_sandal_(men):215426&cm_ven=Froogle&mr:trackingCode=1B177E8F-2C50-DD11-98CA-001422107090&mr:referralID=NA

womens:
http://www.campmor.com/outdoor/gear/Product___14003?CS_003=2477120&CS_010=14003

Important: whether you get the real deal or a knock off, check to make sure the footbed is actually molded to support your foot properly, and that the straps hold your foot firmly to the footbed without either letting your foot twist on the footbed, or cutting into the top of your foot.

That's not the issue. It just usually seems to happen that the one day I go out without full shoes, I end up screwing up my toes due to some clumsy accident.

Exposed anuses = not too hygienic.
Increased chance of bodily secretions also not so good.

I was under the impression that most people wiped and that people weren't usually rubbing their anuses all over each other.

That's not the issue. It just usually seems to happen that the one day I go out without full shoes, I end up screwing up my toes due to some clumsy accident.

http://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?page=simms-keen-river-sandals&categoryId=46193&storeId=1&catalogId=1&langId=-1&parentCategory=503401&cat4=503381&shop_method=pp&feat=503401-tn&np=Y

or

http://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?page=explorer-sandals&categoryId=54042&storeId=1&catalogId=1&langId=-1&parentCategory=503401&cat4=503381&shop_method=pp&feat=503401-tn&np=Y

might do you, then.

I was under the impression that most people wiped and that people weren't usually rubbing their anuses all over each other.

Okay. Hypothetical nudist situation. Person comes to visit. After a while, person announces his intention to defecate using your facilities (perhaps using the charming Greek phrase, "I gotta hang a rat"). They do so. Even the most conscientious wiper is gonna leave something behind (pardon the pun) because dry paper on, shall we say, "freshly exercised anus" is far from perfectly hygienic. If you happen to have a bidet, then that's a different story, however I feel comfortable in wagering that the vast majority of US households do not have bidets. Guest returns to your living room and sits on your couch (fabric, leather, it doesn't really matter). You then play, for example, Halo 3, or watch a movie for a couple of hours. It's Seattle. It's July. It's hot, it's humid, and your house has no A/C.

When guest says goodbye and takes their leave, are you gonna walk over and face-plant where they were sitting to prove your point? Good Lord, I hope not. A face full of salmon-ass is no way to prepare for bed.

Okay. Hypothetical nudist situation. Person comes to visit. After a while, person announces his intention to defecate using your facilities (perhaps using the charming Greek phrase, "I gotta hang a rat"). They do so. Even the most conscientious wiper is gonna leave something behind (pardon the pun) because dry paper on, shall we say, "freshly exercised anus" is far from perfectly hygienic. If you happen to have a bidet, then that's a different story, however I feel comfortable in wagering that the vast majority of US households do not have bidets. Guest returns to your living room and sits on your couch (fabric, leather, it doesn't really matter). You then play, for example, Halo 3, or watch a movie for a couple of hours. It's Seattle. It's July. It's hot, it's humid, and your house has no A/C.

When guest says goodbye and takes their leave, are you gonna walk over and face-plant where they were sitting to prove your point? Good Lord, I hope not. A face full of salmon-ass is no way to prepare for bed.

I suppose we'd have to look at instances of health in nudist colonies or something. But couches are for sitting, not rubbing your face on.

When guest says goodbye and takes their leave, are you gonna walk over and face-plant where they were sitting to prove your point?Would you do that even if they were wearing pants?
Pants really do very little to stop bacteria from reaching the couch.

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.

Men dont have big lumps bouncing around? (Well most dont!!)

In the Victorian era, ankles were considered so erotic that piano legs had skirts put on them.

Conceal it assiduously and you fuel desire for the sight of it. Make it no big deal, and it becomes less of a deal. There's certainly no big deal in going topless, objectively speaking.

As far as sitting on crap, bring a towel to sit on. That's nothing new for nudists, IIRC.

I was under the impression that most people wiped and that people weren't usually rubbing their anuses all over each other.
This is so sigworthy, i just may after i get the tears out of my eyes.
:D

This is so sigworthy, i just may after i get the tears out of my eyes.
:D

I guess, reading it again, that it is a pretty amusing thing to say. Feel free, of course.

I was under the impression that most people wiped and that people weren't usually rubbing their anuses all over each other.

Try sitting on mass transportation and tell me people are as diligent about hygiene as we hope they are.

Wiping takes care of the solids, but what of the bacteria?

Do you really think sitting in someone else's pubic secretions (sweat, mucous, etc.) is a great idea?

Do you really think sitting in someone else's pubic secretions (sweat, mucous, etc.) is a great idea?It ranks higher than drying your cat in the microwave, but lower than sliced bread.

I guess, reading it again, that it is a pretty amusing thing to say. Feel free, of course.I have a sigbank that, at some point, i have to frequent. That whole 8-turned-5 sigline rule .... grrr ....

I suppose we'd have to look at instances of health in nudist colonies or something. But couches are for sitting, not rubbing your face on.

Would you do that even if they were wearing pants?
Pants really do very little to stop bacteria from reaching the couch.

Uh...that's why I said the situation was hypothetical, but hey, don't let that stop you from not answering.

An issue came up today about the subject of public nudity. Heh.

But, I think men look better topless. Not that I'm to men, but a women topless just doesn't look very good, in my opinion, especially if they have such over-sized breasts as some.

With men, there's nothing to see, really.

Being nude is no problem to me. You do what makes you happy. But please, leave me out of it.

(This post fails, I feel....)

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.

The universe is crazy. Let's be wild and free, then old and dead. :D

well in the U.S. boobs are seen as a sexual object and I would rather not see my female family members boobs out.

Well...cause men dont really have Sexual Characteristics in the Mid Section i think...

Hell...I think women can go topless though, lol:rolleyes:

If you accept this then you must accept that there is no reason why people can't walk down the street completely naked.
This is one of those days (mid-nineties, or ~35 on the Celsius scale) when I find the laws requiring me to wear clothing an intolerable burden. I intend to spend all Friday and Saturday naked, but cannot get away this afternoon, probably not tomorrow either.

Well...cause men dont really have Sexual Characteristics in the Mid Section i think...



According to some of my "sources" there's something about there to cause a bit of excitement.

Why are men allowed to go out in public topless, but women aren't? It seems rather arbitrary. I think we all know why going bottomless is restricted :p, but why no toplessness for women only? Discuss.

Strange then, seeing how we all know why going bottomless is restricted, why you feel the need to ask this one?

I guess it's coz rightly or wrongly, womans boobs are regarded as objects of sex!

As for the topic, the "breasts are sexual" is just bullshit created by our culture.

Well I would say that it is hard if not impossible to call bullshit on any cultral asspect. Because by doing so you are adding your morality to cultural practices. So why is it 'bullshit'?

It seems to me that in my culture men find womans breast sexualy attractive. This is neither bullshit in that it is incorrect, nor bullshit in that it is moraly wrong.

So why bullshit then?

Love, I'm not the one who asserted bare breasts = rise in traffic accidents from ogling men.


Heh are you really saying that when confronted with a plethora of bare wimmin breasts that most men wouldn't ogle?

Heh are you really saying that when confronted with a plethora of bare wimmin breasts that most men wouldn't ogle?

No... I'm saying that they have a modicum of self-preservation/their eyes would be on traffic.

No... I'm saying that'IF' they have a modicum of self-preservation/their eyes would be on traffic.

Fixed.

No... I'm saying that they have a modicum of self-preservation/their eyes would be on traffic.

I really don't want to go down this road again, so I'll not re-open the same front as the battle we've already fought on this point, Kat. However, I will add a new wrinkle: self-preservation if a flawed vessel as an argument because it assumes that most drivers view the task of driving as inherently dangerous. This is observably false. I think that's been the center of my argument all along -- complacency and perceived invulnerability behind the wheel by the majority of drivers. And when security as a need (at least according to Maslow's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) way of thinking -- in fact, sex (Physiology) is ranked as more important than driving (Safety: security of body/employment of resources)] is taken care of, the mind is free to shift to other areas.