NationStates Jolt Archive

So, we all know about the TOPFREE movement. Just if you haven't heard of it, it's about rejecting the popular notion that women should wear something over their chest to give male eyes a chance not to lock on their female mammary boobs. That would provide the much needed equality, solving one the worst problems of gender discrimination, i.e. mandatory extra clothing.

But the conservative crowd is, as always, strongly opposed to the topfree ideas, and believes all women must cover their tops, no matter if they're just walking on the street or singing in an opera, making a sandwich or fighting a fire, driving a truck, or gulping down booze with potbellied male truckers.


Even though the liberals have kinda won, a complete US-wide, not to mention worldwide TOPFREE victory is still far out of sight. The modern breed of 'liberal' politician is more concerned with destroying the freedom of gun ownership and cutting economic freedoms, rather than giving people real close-to-the-body liberties, pardon the pun.


But our friends from the strange place where dθ(☉)/dt always exceeds zero (this is a scientific fact, kids!) seem to have developed an alternate way to cope with this problem. And it seems that with a bit of "liberal" legislative effort, it could be made to work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cke2nCp3SY


So, ladies and gentlemen of leisure (what other gentleman would waste his time here?), what do you think about this? Do you like the idea? Will it solve all of your worries, or just some? Would you have one, and, just theoretically, how would you like a world where it was at least traditional?

I think I must still be asleep, men's bras?
Why am I dreaming about posting on NS...

This was an episode of Seinfeld, wasn't it? (I guess most things have been an episode of Seinfeld in some form or other, but this one I remember).

Both genders cover their sexual parts. Men just don't have any one their chests. This sounds like people acting like "treat people equally" means "treat people identically".

That said, I don't really care a great deal if some woman wants to go around with no top. This seems like a stupid issue to waste time on.

Legally, I completely agree with "topfree." Any situation where it's acceptable for a man to be shirtless, a woman should be allowed the same.

Socially, it's a bit more tricky. Unwanted attention (staring for instance) which doesn't cross the line to sexual harrassment, might be intolerable to a woman if it's many guys, all the time.

I think it would take a lot of women going topfree before breasts were accepted as a public part of a woman, beautiful but not sexual -- like hair or face in women or men.

Both genders cover their sexual parts.

The "sexual parts" are the genitals. Breasts are secondary sexual characteristics.

So if I want to grow a big bushy beard on my face, I should wear a beard bra?

It's a social thing, and if it needs to be changed, it needs to be changed gradually. It just wouldn't work to change it overnight; it's not The Man keeping women down, ALL men in western society genuinely see breasts as sexual.

The "sexual parts" are the genitals. Breasts are secondary sexual characteristics.

So if I want to grow a big bushy beard on my face, I should wear a beard bra?

Well, to be honest, I'd call breasts more of a secondary-and-a-half characteristic. Beard work on a subconscious, biological level, but men actively lust over breasts.

Why does there need to be a law on this?

Both genders should be able to choose to go top free, except in circumstances where neither can (job which have sanitation or safety reasons).

Both genders should also have the option of deciding when it would be stupid to do so, and refraining.

The "sexual parts" are the genitals. Breasts are secondary sexual characteristics.
What is, or is not, a sexual part is defined by societal norms. In Western societies, a woman's breast is sexual. You can't just change that overnight.

This has to be one of the most silly things I've ever heard... There is no way that by wearing a bra a man will understand better what it is to be a woman. I do not question the fact that they might be in high demand, for it is known that there is a great amount of dudes that like to wear female underwear... I do not understand the why of the phenomenom but it is real... I think that if anyone is expecting this trend to catch on, you might as well, forget it... asian nut-jobs!

Japan.... why am I not surprised.

What is, or is not, a sexual part is defined by societal norms. In Western societies, a woman's breast is sexual. You can't just change that overnight.

But you can change it.

The first step is surely to give women the legal right to bare their breasts (and not be considered "publicly indecent" or some such) ... and surf, or lug bricks, or display their muscles in a body-building contest, or any other circumstance where it's appropriate for a man to go "topfree."

Breasts are not actually sexual to me, I might add. They're a very sensitive part of a woman, but so is the neck. So are the lips. The idea that "showing the breasts" is a sexual invitation is no more reasonable than thinking the same of the neck, or the lips.

Any woman who would feel uncomfortable with guys oggling their breasts in public could choose to put a top on. Simple. But women who would not feel uncomfortable should be freely able to go topless in any context where a male can go topless.

I suppose you could use the same arguments against this as you could for women showing off their cleavage. Men see the cleavage as sexual, and a woman revealing her cleavage can attract unwanted attention from men too. So, all women should have to cover their cleavages at all times. Right?

Even though the liberals have kinda won, a complete US-wide, not to mention worldwide TOPFREE victory is still far out of sight. The modern breed of 'liberal' politician is more concerned with destroying the freedom of gun ownership and cutting economic freedoms, rather than giving people real close-to-the-body liberties, pardon the pun.
Chip on your shoulder much?

Well, to be honest, I'd call breasts more of a secondary-and-a-half characteristic. Beard work on a subconscious, biological level, but men actively lust over breasts.

Or feet. Or legs. Or butts.

Or feet. Or legs. Or butts.

Best of all, all connected together!

The boob bone's connected to the chest-bone
And the chest-bone's connected to the neck-bone
And the neck-bone's connected to the back-bone
And the back-bone's connected to the thigh-bone
And the thigh-bone's connected to the butt-bone
And the butt-bone's connected to the leg-bones
And the leg-bones connected to the hair-bone
And the hair-bone's connected to the foot-bone
And the foot-bone's connected to the wrist-bone
And the wrist-bone's connected to the pussy-bone
And the pussy-bone's connected to the knee-bone
And the knee-bone is connected to the panty-bone
And the panty-bone's connected to the porn-bone
And the porn-bone's connected to the brain-bone
And the brain-bone's connected to the navel-bone
And the navel-bone's connected to mommy.
Oh mercy how they scare!

Best of all, all connected together!

The boob bone's connected to the chest-bone
And the chest-bone's connected to the neck-bone
And the neck-bone's connected to the back-bone
And the back-bone's connected to the thigh-bone
And the thigh-bone's connected to the butt-bone
And the butt-bone's connected to the leg-bones
And the leg-bones connected to the hair-bone
And the hair-bone's connected to the foot-bone
And the foot-bone's connected to the wrist-bone
And the wrist-bone's connected to the pussy-bone
And the pussy-bone's connected to the knee-bone
And the knee-bone is connected to the panty-bone
And the panty-bone's connected to the porn-bone
And the porn-bone's connected to the brain-bone
And the brain-bone's connected to the navel-bone
And the navel-bone's connected to mommy.
Oh mercy how they scare!

And them bones supposed to walk around?

Both genders cover their sexual parts.

What standard decides what is "sexual"?

Or feet. Or legs. Or butts.

Even so. Show me a man who doesn't find the breasts to be sexual, and I'll show you a homosexual.

What standard decides what is "sexual"?
ISO 9001+, I dare say.

minoen crete had excelent fassion sense.

Even so. Show me a man who doesn't find the breasts to be sexual, and I'll show you a homosexual.

Show me a woman who doesn't find male chests sexual, and I'll show you a lesbian.

Alternatively, show me a man who doesn't find a woman's lips to be sexual, and I'll show you a heckuva weird man.

Or, you know, you could actually make an argument as to why "lots of guys think boobs are hot" logically means laws should exist prohibiting women from baring said boobs, but that's probably a bit trickier than simply arguing that men like boobies.

Show me a woman who doesn't find male chests sexual, and I'll show you a lesbian.

Alternatively, show me a man who doesn't find a woman's lips to be sexual, and I'll show you a heckuva weird man.

Or, you know, you could actually make an argument as to why "lots of guys think boobs are hot" logically means laws should exist prohibiting women from baring said boobs, but that's probably a bit trickier than simply arguing that men like boobies.

Do you have any idea what would happen? You'd have a society that's constantly distracted. There would a lot more car crashes. That's not a joke.

"lots of guys think boobs are hot"

I am SaintB, and I endorse this message.

Do you have any idea what would happen? You'd have a society that's constantly distracted. There would a lot more car crashes. That's not a joke.

I could argue the same thing about the legality of cleavages being shown in public. Men would be much less distracted if it were illegal for women to show some cleavage.

Even so. Show me a man who doesn't find the breasts to be sexual, and I'll show you a homosexual.

wrong!

i rather suspect a very large number of men of cultures many in today's 'western' 'mainstream' are appearantly unfamiliar with, might take rather serious except to that conjecture. i don't think too many maori for example, would take all that kindly to such an assumption.

the might always be considered an aspect of attractiveness, but in many cultures not all that long ago, women going topless or even naked were not all that uncommon, and NOT invariably associated with anything erotic simply by doing so.

i seem to recall pictures of highschool classess in samoa, as recently as the 60s, possibly the 70s, where girls (and boys also of course) were all topless (something to do with climate and perhapse not so commonness of air conditioning)

So, we all know about the TOPFREE movement. Just if you haven't heard of it, it's about rejecting the popular notion that women should wear something over their chest to give male eyes a chance not to lock on their female mammary boobs. That would provide the much needed equality, solving one the worst problems of gender discrimination, i.e. mandatory extra clothing.While it is one form, mandatory extra clothing is hardly one of the worst problems of gender discrimination.

wrong!

i rather suspect a very large number of men of cultures many in today's 'western' 'mainstream' are appearantly unfamiliar with, might take rather serious except to that conjecture. i don't think too many maori for example, would take all that kindly to such an assumption.

the might always be considered an aspect of attractiveness, but in many cultures not all that long ago, women going topless or even naked were not all that uncommon, and NOT invariably associated with anything erotic simply by doing so.

i seem to recall pictures of highschool classess in samoa, as recently as the 60s, possibly the 70s, where girls (and boys also of course) were all topless (something to do with climate and perhapse not so commonness of air conditioning)

Maoris are a different culture.

Maoris are a different culture.

Doesn't matter. Your claim was that all men who do not find breasts sexual are homosexuals. He refuted your claim. You were wrong.

Doesn't matter. Your claim was that all men who do not find breasts sexual are homosexuals. He refuted your claim. You were wrong.

Oh, shut up. We live in a Western culture and it's obvious that I was referring to it in the context of Western society.

Oh, shut up. We live in a Western culture and it's obvious that I was referring to it in the context of Western society.

no it isn't (obvious at all!). we are on the internet. international network. NOT closed to nondominant non"western" cultures. something i think all of us, including myself, need to remember and be more consciencous and considerate about!

also a factor very and directly pertinent to the question at hand.

Oh, shut up. We live in a Western culture and it's obvious that I was referring to it in the context of Western society.

No, it really wasn't. I only think of boobs as sexual objects when they are showed to me in a sexual context...

Even so. Show me a man who doesn't find the breasts to be sexual, and I'll show you a homosexual.

I am a straight male, yet I have no desire at all to see Barbara Bush topless.

I am a straight male, yet I have no desire at all to see Barbara Bush topless.

That's not because you don't like breasts.

Do you have any idea what would happen? You'd have a society that's constantly distracted. There would a lot more car crashes. That's not a joke.

Amazing how straight women can manage to drive at all in the summertime when lots of guys go jogging shirtless, huh? Are you honestly arguing that men are so vastly inferior to women that they can't manage the sort of very basic prioritizing that puts "watching the road" ahead of "ogling the topless people"?

men and women are different. i don't have boobs. i'm not wearing a bra.

i'm also pretty gentle and caring anyway... apart from when i'm being a bit of a clumsy ogre :$

If boobies weren't hidden from me all the time, I'm sure I'd care a lot less about them.

Both genders cover their sexual parts. Men just don't have any one their chests. This sounds like people acting like "treat people equally" means "treat people identically".

That said, I don't really care a great deal if some woman wants to go around with no top. This seems like a stupid issue to waste time on.

But the only reason that they're sexual parts is that they're covered all the time. When ankles were covered all the time they were sexual. Short skirts were a scandal when they hit the scene (http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/flapper.gif). But legs aren't considered sexual parts anymore. The same will happen with bare breasts.

As a male, I can only be so much happy they fight for it themselves. :p

My hands are for grasping things, my feet are for walking and my boobies are for feeding babies. If you have a fetish over them it's not my fault.

There is no reason for me to wear a shirt if I don't want to. Grow up and learn to keep your hands to yourself.

learn to keep your hands to yourself.

If only that too could be turned into a fight for equality...:D

Is it illegal to be topless? It shouldnt be...

That's not because you don't like breasts.

Obviously you haven't seen my hentai collection.

And no, I'm not going to violate the TOS by posting some of it here.

no it isn't (obvious at all!). we are on the internet. international network. NOT closed to nondominant non"western" cultures. something i think all of us, including myself, need to remember and be more consciencous and considerate about!

also a factor very and directly pertinent to the question at hand.

No, it really wasn't. I only think of boobs as sexual objects when they are showed to me in a sexual context...

He had specifically mentioned western culture just a few posts beforehand, so it shouldn't have been that difficult to figure out what he was referring to. I had no trouble figuring it out, and I very much doubt that I'm smarter than both of you.

He had specifically mentioned western culture just a few posts beforehand, so it shouldn't have been that difficult to figure out what he was referring to. I had no trouble figuring it out, and I very much doubt that I'm smarter than both of you.

And yet it's not western culture as such.

Plenty of places have had legal topless women for decades. Some of the more unusual places for that to happen would be Scandinavia, however, when it's warm and sunny, you want to actually be able to enjoy the sun damnit!

That he is being childish and unable to be around topless women without thinking sex... well, that's not my problem or any woman's problem, is it? It's his.

...unable to be around topless women without thinking sex... well, that's not my problem or any woman's problem, is it? It's his.

Yes, and if he can't drive without staring at jiggling chests, he really shouldn't be allowed to have a license.

People with attractive tops should be free in the top, people with attractive bottoms should be free in the bottom, and everyone should snuggle up nice and tight.

Alternatively, we could relax harassment laws so we can make fun of the people not wearing enough.

I would love to be allowed to be not only top-free but also naked all the time, even when I have to go to the market. I dislike clothes with a passion and only wear them because, otherwise, I would be thrown into jail for indicent exposure and, maybe, endangering human lives in the process.:D

Amazing how straight women can manage to drive at all in the summertime when lots of guys go jogging shirtless, huh? Are you honestly arguing that men are so vastly inferior to women that they can't manage the sort of very basic prioritizing that puts "watching the road" ahead of "ogling the topless people"?
That must be why women get into more crashes than men. Too many topless guys distracting the women from the road.

Is mandating that women must cover their breasts by law any different than this:

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/images/burqa_50.jpg

?

Yes, the "top free" movement has much to do with equality.

Society should stop condemning nudity as "indecent".

He had specifically mentioned western culture just a few posts beforehand, so it shouldn't have been that difficult to figure out what he was referring to. I had no trouble figuring it out, and I very much doubt that I'm smarter than both of you.

I already knew he meant western culture, i was just informing him he was wrong.

Do you have any idea what would happen? You'd have a society that's constantly distracted. There would a lot more car crashes. That's not a joke.

In Ontario it's been legal for women to go topless in public for at least ten years. I have yet to see a women exercise her rights.






:(

I'm rather fond of clothes. The act of stripping them off someone is not a pleasure I'd willingly forgo.

Also I get so damn cold.

In Ontario it's been legal for women to go topless in public for at least ten years. I have yet to see a women exercise her rights.






:(

That's because it's in fucking Ontario. I'm sure it's legal for women to go topless at the North Pole too. :p

I'm rather fond of clothes. The act of stripping them off someone is not a pleasure I'd willingly forgo.


Hmm, do you sell this clothes removal service? Because latly I can't be bothered to take them off unless I need to go somewhere, and thats so I can put new ones on...

That's because it's in fucking Ontario. I'm sure it's legal for women to go topless at the North Pole too. :p

What are you talking about? There's about six hours between the end of the spring thaw and the start of the blackfly season when the weather is gorgeous.

Personally I think It'd be great if women went around topless ... I think you picked the wrong *month* to bring it up (it's already bit nipply outside). But I think this brings up another point - I'm fine with women taking off their tops - but if they do that they can't get mad at me for having a good look.

And the other thing - mabey it's not ok everywhere. Parks, the beach, walking down the street, 7-11 should be ok but mabey not restauants, school... I really don't know about driving ... a topless woman on a motocycle? There are lots of places where it's probably not ok, but within reason and If they want to then yeah take it off!

What are you talking about? There's about six hours between the end of the spring thaw and the start of the blackfly season when the weather is gorgeous.

Reminds me of a line from a Lewis Black routine recorded in Minnesota,

"People always tell me, 'You should come to Minnesota in the summer, they're exceptional.' Yeah, because you can move your fuckin' fingers and toes."

you can take it off if you want, but then you have no exuse to be offended if a man stares

Both genders cover their sexual parts.

Obviously the definition of "sexual parts" is different in other cultures/societies. However, yes. Men cover their genetalia and bottoms; and women cover their genetalia, bottoms and breasts.

Men just don't have any one their chests. This sounds like people acting like "treat
people equally" means "treat people identically".

This is a really good point, and this happens in lots of situations, not just this one.

But you can change it.

It takes a long time to change something. It won't happen overnight.

The first step is surely to give women the legal right to bare their breasts (and not be considered "publicly indecent" or some such)

Yes, that is the first step, but what consequences will there be? Will women who choose to go topfree - even though it's legal - suffer injustice?

... and surf, or lug bricks, or display their muscles in a body-building contest, or any other circumstance where it's appropriate for a man to go "topfree."

On an interesting note, have you ever watched body-building contests? They are sickeningly sexist. The men show their muscles; the women get fake tanned, hairsprayed, shaved, waxed and made up and then stand around in bikinis. If they were expected to wear the same thing as men rather than bikinis, perhaps it would create equality on the surface, but it won't change the inherently sexist views of women. If anything, when they first begin baring their breasts, it would make it more sexual.

We have to think of a logical way to go about equality that won't result in dire consequences. Perhaps topfree could go in stages. Legally topless at the beach; legally topless at the pool, etc. I don't know. I think it's a fair enough point. I get bothered by men walking around topless in the mall. Not because I'm offended by the male figure, but because I think personally the mall is not a place to be topless, and if they think it's a place to be topless, women should be allowed to be topless in the mall if they so desire.

Breasts are not actually sexual to me, I might add. They're a very sensitive part of a woman, but so is the neck. So are the lips. The idea that "showing the breasts" is a sexual invitation is no more reasonable than thinking the same of the neck, or the lips.

However, you are just one person who thinks that. The vast majority in Western society see breasts as sexual. I agree that showing the breasts is not a sexual invitation, and shouldn't be legally any different to showing the neck, for example, but the reaction many people will have to topfree is concerning. Obviously we won't know until it happens, but I can see it creating a real problem. I don't want to see women being attacked for showing their body legally.

Any woman who would feel uncomfortable with guys oggling their breasts in public could choose to put a top on. Simple. But women who would not feel uncomfortable should be freely able to go topless in any context where a male can go topless.

I suppose you could use the same arguments against this as you could for women showing off their cleavage. Men see the cleavage as sexual, and a woman revealing her cleavage can attract unwanted attention from men too. So, all women should have to cover their cleavages at all times. Right?

According to my principal in my senior year, if you show your cleavage, you deserve to be sexually harrased. :(

Show me a woman who doesn't find male chests sexual, and I'll show you a lesbian.

Well, they're not that sexual. Like, they're sexual, but not - for me - the main attraction point. I probably look at tits more, haha.

While it is one form, mandatory extra clothing is hardly one of the worst problems of gender discrimination.

QFT.

you can take it off if you want, but then you have no exuse to be offended if a man stares

The purpose of topfree would be to tear town the notion that a woman's breasts should be covered because they're too "sexual" or "indecent". If everyone were to go topfree for a very very long time, it would change the social norms, and breasts would eventually be seen as less sexual.

And yes, at first men will stare, and it will be annoying. I agree that - like when a woman wears a revealing or figure hugging dress - that we need to accept that men will look. After all, men (and women!) will look at a woman who looks sexy, attractive, beautiful, interesting etc. However, there is a difference between innocently looking and staring.

Oh, and:

The whole male bra thing?

A little bit funny? Yes. A little bit weird? Yes. A little bit gay? Yes. Helps men understand women? No. No. No.

I think the claim made by the woman in the video that the man-bra helps men to understand what it's like for women is absurd and offensive. Bras are underwear. Bras are essentially designed to support the breasts to prevent damage. If a man does not have breasts, he has no need to wear a bra. Likewise, an extremely flat chested woman does not need to wear a bra.

If a man wants to know what it's like to be a woman, he should just ask a woman.

you can take it off if you want, but then you have no exuse to be offended if a man stares

Utter nonsense. Men do not get a free pass to be rude based on what a woman is or is not wearing. If you'd said, "You have no excuse to be offended if men glance at your breasts," sure, fine, duh - but staring at people is bad manners regardless of your reason for staring.

Well, they're not that sexual. Like, they're sexual, but not - for me - the main attraction point. I probably look at tits more, haha.


Sure, but breasts aren't the "main attraction point" for plenty of straight men, either - they're just one of several features that the vast majority of straight guys really like looking at. I'm pretty sure a nice-looking male chest has much the same effect on your average straight woman as a nice-looking female chest does on your average straight man (except, of course, that the latter has all sorts of taboos attached at the moment, while the former does not).

Sure, but breasts aren't the "main attraction point" for plenty of straight men, either - they're just one of several features that the vast majority of straight guys really like looking at. I'm pretty sure a nice-looking male chest has much the same effect on your average straight woman as a nice-looking female chest does on your average straight man (except, of course, that the latter has all sorts of taboos attached at the moment, while the former does not).

Heh, anything can be construed as sexual on either gender. I've found myself attracted to nice hands for instance...

My opinion, for all it's worth, is that clothes are silly anyway, and nudity to any degree should be legal.

Heh, anything can be construed as sexual on either gender. I've found myself attracted to nice hands for instance...

Me too. And I find the way some men sway their hips when they change position while talking to someone else on foot is highly sexy. And these hips are always covered by either jeans or work pants so...

I would love to be allowed to be not only top-free but also naked all the time, even when I have to go to the market. I dislike clothes with a passion and only wear them because, otherwise, I would be thrown into jail for indicent exposure and, maybe, endangering human lives in the process.:D

*Starts preparing move to Madrid* :D

But the only reason that they're sexual parts is that they're covered all the time. When ankles were covered all the time they were sexual. Short skirts were a scandal when they hit the scene (http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/flapper.gif). But legs aren't considered sexual parts anymore. The same will happen with bare breasts.

Speak for yourself, though yes I dare say it may not be considered as sexual as now. But really do we always want to be seeing them?

And the other thing - mabey it's not ok everywhere. Parks, the beach, walking down the street, 7-11 should be ok but mabey not restauants, school... I really don't know about driving ... a topless woman on a motocycle? There are lots of places where it's probably not ok, but within reason and If they want to then yeah take it off!

If they know what is good for them no one should be driving a motorcycle topless.

Heh, anything can be construed as sexual on either gender. I've found myself attracted to nice hands for instance...

Ye gods, yes. I drool over slender-fingered pianist-hands more than I ever have over any genitalia. As far as I'm concerned, if we covered up body parts based only on their capacity to be sexually exciting, people would mostly be walking around in ski masks, mittens, and very little else. :p

I think everyone is missing a crucial point, as a matter of public safety and order, we need to set attractiveness guidelines for going topless.

I think everyone is missing a crucial point, as a matter of public safety and order, we need to set attractiveness guidelines for going topless.

Which is why it is just easier to ban it outright.

Which is why it is just easier to ban it outright.

I'm willing to be a team player and conduct examinations for approval

Here's a thought:
Why not just require everyone to wear a shirt in public? That'll be one less excuse for you radical feminists to argue just for the sake of arguing.
(Why else would anyone demand the right to sexually arouse those of the opposite gender?)

Here's a thought:
Why not just require everyone to wear a shirt in public? That'll be one less excuse for you radical feminists to argue just for the sake of arguing.
(Why else would anyone demand the right to sexually arouse those of the opposite gender?)
There is a slight problem in assuming the intention of feminist's going topless is to arouse members of the opposite sex, and not address an inequality in sexual standards

There is a slight problem in assuming the intention of feminist's going topless is to arouse members of the opposite sex, and not address an inequality in sexual standards

Maybe so, but aren't there more practical equality issues that could be addressed, such as the difference in wages?

In any case, wouldn't the idea about men being required to wear shirts solve the problem well enough, if the only issue here is equality?

Is it necessary for equality?
Yes.

Is it something I'm really going to focus on with all of the various forms of inequality out there?
Not really.

Here's a thought:
Why not just require everyone to wear a shirt in public?

Here's a question:
Why should the government tell us what to wear in the first place?

Here's a question:
Why should the government tell us what to wear in the first place?
Why should the government tell us anything in the first place? Because it is the general consensus that certain things should be done or not done whether the individual finds them necessary or not.
This isn't The Man making you wear pants and a shirt, it is the people around you who really aren't interested in seeing your wrinkly, pale butt.

without a poll, this thread does not deliver.

Here's a question:
Why should the government tell us what to wear in the first place?

Because apparently, we can't reach an agreement by ourselves.

Why should the government tell us anything in the first place?

The safety of its citizens.

Because it is the general consensus that certain things should be done or not done whether the individual finds them necessary or not.

I don't really care about general consensus unless I am shown a clear need for interference in my life.

This isn't The Man making you wear pants and a shirt, it is the people around you who really aren't interested in seeing your wrinkly, pale butt.

I'm not interested in seeing fat men topless, but I'm not trying to force them into shirts.

I'm not interested in seeing most reality TV, but I'm not trying to keep it off the air.

"I don't particularly want to see 'X'" is not a compelling enough reason for interference in someone else's life. Sorry.


Because apparently, we can't reach an agreement by ourselves.

Why do we need one? Why should what I choose to wear be any of your business? Why should what you choose to wear be any of mine?

The safety of its citizens.
Maybe in an idealized libertarian state, but seeing as no such thing exists . . .
I don't really care about general consensus unless I am shown a clear need for interference in my life.
Government fucks around in all sorts of areas where there is no clear need for it. There is no "clear need" for research grants; there is no "clear need" for national parks; there is no "clear need" for a student loan program.
I'm not interested in seeing fat men topless, but I'm not trying to force them into shirts.

I'm not interested in seeing most reality TV, but I'm not trying to keep it off the air.
These things are different. Someone in public is unavoidable, he's there. Avoiding a TV show is simply a matter of changing the channel.
"I don't particularly want to see 'X'" is not a compelling enough reason for interference in someone else's life. Sorry.
It's a quality of life issue, like littering or noise pollution.

Maybe in an idealized libertarian state, but seeing as no such thing exists . . .

*shrug*

Maybe we should strive to get closer to it.

Government fucks around in all sorts of areas where there is no clear need for it. There is no "clear need" for research grants; there is no "clear need" for national parks; there is no "clear need" for a student loan program.

I would disagree actually. I can see quite clear needs for all of those things.

I do not, on the other hand, see any need for the government to tell an individual what to wear.

These things are different. Someone in public is unavoidable, he's there. Avoiding a TV show is simply a matter of changing the channel.

And that addresses the fact that I don't particularly want to see topless fat men.....how?

Fat men can go topless in public as they please. I'm not trying to force them into shirts because it's none of my business. I may not particularly want to see them, but it doesn't harm me for them to go about their business with no shirt on. Thus, it is none of my business.

It's a quality of life issue, like littering or noise pollution.

Littering and noise pollution can both be health issues. Seeing an unattractive person isn't.

These things are different. Someone in public is unavoidable, he's there. Avoiding a TV show is simply a matter of changing the channel.

Exactly? Why should I be forced to see some fat chicks legs because she is wearing short-shorts only meant for skinny girls? We should ban short-shorts and miniskirts, so I don't have to see ugly peoples disgusting legs.

Right?

So, we all know about the TOPFREE movement. Just if you haven't heard of it, it's about rejecting the popular notion that women should wear something over their chest to give male eyes a chance not to lock on their female mammary boobs. That would provide the much needed equality, solving one the worst problems of gender discrimination, i.e. mandatory extra clothing.

In Ontario we are TOPFREE and I love it. Never seen a pair of boobs in public though. The rest of Canada isn't, but they probably will be if someone ver wanted try fight it.

It's a quality of life issue, like littering or noise pollution.

Caring about littering...so cute.

There is a slight problem in assuming the intention of feminist's going topless is to arouse members of the opposite sex, and not address an inequality in sexual standards

Ummm practicly everything we wear/dont is to arouse somebody for some reason. Why do you dress nicely (not saying you do )? to impress people. Why shave? to impress people. Why go topless a) arouse people, b) it's fucking hot out. So saying it is for equality is good and I think I agree with you.

Ummm practicly everything we wear/dont is to arouse somebody for some reason. Why do you dress nicely (not saying you do )? to impress people. Why shave? to impress people. Why go topless a) arouse people, b) it's fucking hot out. So saying it is for equality is good and I think I agree with you.

I shave (sometimes) usually because my facial hair gets annoying, especially when trying to sleep. I dress nicely sometimes because I like the way I look in a suit. I take my shirt off sometimes because the shirt is just too damn uncomfortable, for various reasons. If I don't want to wear a shirt at the beach, it is certainly not because I'm trying to impress the girls there, though that would probably be a side-effect.

Arousing people is not the primary function of the way I look. MY personal comfort is.

Exactly? Why should I be forced to see some fat chicks legs because she is wearing short-shorts only meant for skinny girls? We should ban short-shorts and miniskirts, so I don't have to see ugly peoples disgusting legs.

Right?

No. We just restrict it. You give licenses to people who are fit enough for those types of clothing, with a monthly evaluation to see if they still qualify.

I would disagree actually. I can see quite clear needs for all of those things.

Then maybe you could clarify them to me?
(Yes, I agree national parks are a good thing, but the way I see it, the need for them is no more "clear" than the need to be civilized.)

No. We just restrict it. You give licenses to people who are fit enough for those types of clothing, with a monthly evaluation to see if they still qualify.

How do you determine if they're "fit enough," though?
I suppose you could give licenses only to those who look good in such things, but wouldn't that be too subjective?

I would disagree actually. I can see quite clear needs for all of those things.

I do not, on the other hand, see any need for the government to tell an individual what to wear.
Care to explain how the absence of a national park would cause people to start dropping over dead? Government subsidized student loans are good, they promote a certain degree of equality in higher education and offer opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise have them, but they're not necessary. University's have no shortage of applicants, and if it means that some people's quality of life is a little lower, well that's just tough cheese.
And that addresses the fact that I don't particularly want to see topless fat men.....how?
I should think it is obvious. If you see a reality TV show, you chose to turn on the TV, selected that channel, and then settled down to watch. If a fat guy is sits down next to you on the Subway or across from you in a restaurant, you have no choice but to deal with his presence.
Fat men can go topless in public as they please. I'm not trying to force them into shirts because it's none of my business. I may not particularly want to see them, but it doesn't harm me for them to go about their business with no shirt on. Thus, it is none of my business.
When I see it, it becomes my business.
Littering and noise pollution can both be health issues. Seeing an unattractive person isn't.
No. Littering and noise pollution are only concerns because we're trying to live in a civil, polite society. That means that you have to make concessions to the people around you. Sometimes that means wearing clothes, sometimes that means turning down your music between 1 AM and 7 AM, sometimes that means not stabbing everything that comes within arms distance.

I shave (sometimes) usually because my facial hair gets annoying, especially when trying to sleep. I dress nicely sometimes because I like the way I look in a suit. I take my shirt off sometimes because the shirt is just too damn uncomfortable, for various reasons. If I don't want to wear a shirt at the beach, it is certainly not because I'm trying to impress the girls there, though that would probably be a side-effect.

Arousing people is not the primary function of the way I look. MY personal comfort is.
Right there, you are concerned for your appearance because you want other people to pay attention to you. If people were only interested in comfort, we'd all be wearing sweat pants or jeans. Ties, high heels and sport jackets would be entirely unheard of.

Care to explain how the absence of a national park would cause people to start dropping over dead? Government subsidized student loans are good, they promote a certain degree of equality in higher education and offer opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise have them, but they're not necessary. University's have no shortage of applicants, and if it means that some people's quality of life is a little lower, well that's just tough cheese.

Tertiary education is an investment. It is inarguably true that the average income for someone with a university degree is higher than the average for high school graduates with no further education.

A basic economic principle is that higher income = more disposable money. More disposable money means more spending, which is better for the economy. Governments should encourage tertiary education as much as possible, because in the long run, it will pay off.

Right there, you are concerned for your appearance because you want other people to pay attention to you. If people were only interested in comfort, we'd all be wearing sweat pants or jeans. Ties, high heels and sport jackets would be entirely unheard of.

I couldn't give a toss what other people think of how I look in a suit. I just like the way I look in a suit. If other people don't like the way I look in a suit, well, they have no right to tell me I can't wear one. Frack 'em.

Right there, you are concerned for your appearance because you want other people to pay attention to you. If people were only interested in comfort, we'd all be wearing sweat pants or jeans. Ties, high heels and sport jackets would be entirely unheard of.

Looks more like this person wants to be able to look in the mirror without cringing, not to get attention.

Looks more like this person wants to be able to look in the mirror without cringing, not to get attention.

Not really. I look in the mirror without cringing all the time (my overinflated ego permits that), but I just like how I look in a suit.

Not really. I look in the mirror without cringing all the time (my overinflated ego permits that), but I just like how I look in a suit.

It's an expression. Sorry if I offended you.

Right there, you are concerned for your appearance because you want other people to pay attention to you. If people were only interested in comfort, we'd all be wearing sweat pants or jeans. Ties, high heels and sport jackets would be entirely unheard of.

Please explain why I not infrequently put on pretty things when I know perfectly well no one but me will see them. 'Cause, see, I'm pretty sure I'm not doing that to impress others.

I'm not interested in seeing fat men topless, but I'm not trying to force them into shirts.

I'm not interested in seeing most reality TV, but I'm not trying to keep it off the air.

"I don't particularly want to see 'X'" is not a compelling enough reason for interference in someone else's life. Sorry.

But if it interferes in your life...

I don't see any reason for it to be on the books as illegal, it would help clear up the problems around breastfeeding and such.

Frankly, I find all this discussion about whether or not someone should be allowed to go topless because of their looks is rather pointless. I mean, how many fat men do you see A day that are shirtless? Most people have a good deal of common sense, they may go topless at a swimming pool or at a beach, or on a very hot day, but you're not going to see people walking around all the time like that.

Please explain why I not infrequently put on pretty things when I know perfectly well no one but me will see them. 'Cause, see, I'm pretty sure I'm not doing that to impress others.

I like when my little pet puts on her pretties... uhm wait I mean...

Right there, you are concerned for your appearance because you want other people to pay attention to you. If people were only interested in comfort, we'd all be wearing sweat pants or jeans. Ties, high heels and sport jackets would be entirely unheard of.
Well, virtually all of what is formalwear today started out in life as everyday regular clothing. Ties used to have the simple function of keeping the shirt closed, before buttons were invented, and later covering the hole in it. High heels had the function of keeping the legs elevated in the feces-covered streets of medieval Europe where streets and sewers were one and the same.

Also, jeans are hardly a comfortable article of clothing, compared to normal soft pants. They're practical and take the dirt acceptably, that's what they're good for, while still more comfy than leather pants. Today they're sort of a semi-formal wear, you can walk into a restaurant in traditional-fashion, clean black or near-black jeans.



But of course formalwear sucks. Actually, around now, I'm quite seriously choosing between a promotion and retaining the right to wear whatever the hell I like.

So, we all know about the TOPFREE movement. Just if you haven't heard of it, it's about rejecting the popular notion that women should wear something over their chest to give male eyes a chance not to lock on their female mammary boobs. That would provide the much needed equality, solving one the worst problems of gender discrimination, i.e. mandatory extra clothing.

Actually any woman with breast size above 1st (european bra measure, I don't know how much in " or cm) should use a bra, because of skin and mammary tissue stress (which can lead to breast cancer, btw).

As for looking on boobs, anthropology tells us that boobs are sexually arousing for men, on an instinctive level. It is theorically possible to induce a de-sexualisation of exposed boobs by making it commonplace, but that will take a lot of time. In the meanwhile, women going around topless will continue to arouse most men; then again, gentlemen will control themselves, but not everyone can be a gentleman 24/24, 365/365.

Actually any woman with breast size above 1st (european bra measure, I don't know how much in " or cm) should use a bra, because of skin and mammary tissue stress (which can lead to breast cancer, btw).
IIRC that has been proven to be an intentional misconception. Particularly about 'support': while the bra provides it, that leads to the atrophy of the chest muscles that otherwise can keep the mammary glands well supported and in good shape.

As for stress, why would these tissues *need* to be stressed by the bra?

Also, what about men with "manboobs", then, i.e. 2+ bra size?

IIRC that has been proven to be an intentional misconception. Particularly about 'support': while the bra provides it, that leads to the atrophy of the chest muscles that otherwise can keep the mammary glands well supported and in good shape.

My fiancee would disagree. Not wearing a bra gives her all sorts of backbone aches.


As for stress, why would these tissues *need* to be stressed by the bra?

They aren't stressed by the bra: they're stressed by the weight force. The bra reduces the stress on skin and mammary glands by distributing the weight on the shoulders.

Also, what about men with "manboobs", then, i.e. 2+ bra size?
1."Manboobs" don't have gland tissue beneath. Hence no risk of breast cancer due to systematical formation of scars.
2.Men with manboobs=obese, generally. The skin of obese people is fatigued by weight and subject to formation of scars, which increase the risk of skin cancer. They'd better lose weight.

My fiancee would disagree. Not wearing a bra gives her all sorts of backbone aches.
Anecdotal example is not a rule. Especially since it seems to be a condition requiring medical intervention, being without artificial support shouldn't give a healthy person any aches.


They aren't stressed by the bra: they're stressed by the weight force. The bra reduces the stress on skin and mammary glands by distributing the weight on the shoulders.
Now this is outright silly. I don't for a moment believe that 30 million years of evolution, which created tens of amazing features, couldn't manage to properly handle the weight of the mammary glands. Not for a moment. Everything needed to handle their pretty small weight is right there. Just don't make it atrophy.


1."Manboobs" don't have gland tissue beneath. Hence no risk of breast cancer due to systematical formation of scars.
Are you sure? I've heard they can actually be trained to produce milk if sucked on.

I don't see any reason for it to be on the books as illegal, it would help clear up the problems around breastfeeding and such.

Yeah, that's the bottom line for me too. A woman with a baby has the right to breastfeed anywhere, any time.

Anybody else's perception of a breast as "sexual" ... or their expectations of 'modesty' based in that perception ... simply fail outright when the breast is being used to suckle a baby.

Especially since it seems to be a condition requiring medical intervention
No, this is not the case.

being without artificial support shouldn't give a healthy person any aches.
Wtf? Try walking without shoes for a whole day. Or try to live outdoors in a temperate area without clothes.
Not using artificial complements gives A LOT of aches.

Now this is outright silly. I don't for a moment believe that 30 million years of evolution, which created tens of amazing features, couldn't manage to properly handle the weight of the mammary glands.
30 millions years of evolution haven't given us tough feet. Or indestructible teeth. Or fur. Or a cure for (some) cancers. Or soap. TECHNOLOGY has given it to us.
You should remember that artificial (mostly social) selection also played a role, and artificial selection is quite faster than natural evolution.
Your beliefs are just that: beliefs, quite unsupported by facts.

Are you sure? I've heard they can actually be trained to produce milk if sucked on.
That would need a sharp reduction in testosterone levels. Less testosterone, more female hormones => developing female secondary traits. As for that liquid being milk, I doubt.

Actually any woman with breast size above 1st (european bra measure, I don't know how much in " or cm) should use a bra, because of skin and mammary tissue stress (which can lead to breast cancer, btw).

Really? Breast cancer?

I'm trying to imagine how "stress" of gravity might reduce blood flow, causing build-up of carcinogens ... it doesn't seem like something that could be a major contributing factor, really.

So ... source?

As for looking on boobs, anthropology tells us that boobs are sexually arousing for men, on an instinctive level. It is theorically possible to induce a de-sexualisation of exposed boobs by making it commonplace, but that will take a lot of time. In the meanwhile, women going around topless will continue to arouse most men; then again, gentlemen will control themselves, but not everyone can be a gentleman 24/24, 365/365.

That's what jails are for.

Can't respect another person's rights, 24/24, 365/365 ? Go to jail.

Really? Breast cancer?

I'm trying to imagine how "stress" of gravity might reduce blood flow, causing build-up of carcinogens ... it doesn't seem like something that could be a major contributing factor, really.


Scars in mammary gland tissue due to weight. Scars in gland tissues aren't nice.

Scars in mammary gland tissue due to weight. Scars in gland tissues aren't nice.

"Aren't nice" =/= "causes cancer."

Source, or retract it.

Well, virtually all of what is formalwear today started out in life as everyday regular clothing. Ties used to have the simple function of keeping the shirt closed, before buttons were invented, and later covering the hole in it. High heels had the function of keeping the legs elevated in the feces-covered streets of medieval Europe where streets and sewers were one and the same.

Huh.

Also, jeans are hardly a comfortable article of clothing, compared to normal soft pants. They're practical and take the dirt acceptably, that's what they're good for, while still more comfy than leather pants. Today they're sort of a semi-formal wear, you can walk into a restaurant in traditional-fashion, clean black or near-black jeans.

I dunno. Jeans can be comfortable, in an odd kind of way. Reasonably tight non-hipster jeans (ones that go reasonably above the waist) tend to give you a bit more support than, say, a pair of regular pants. My jeans aren't nearly as comfortable as a pair of moleskins I've got, but I still wear them because of their rigidity.

But of course formalwear sucks. Actually, around now, I'm quite seriously choosing between a promotion and retaining the right to wear whatever the hell I like.

I'm going to disagree with the formalwear sucks statement. I quite like wearing suits from time to time. They're warm when it's cool, cool when it's warm, and ultimately pretty comfortable, so long as you can avoid a tie.

Wtf? Try walking without shoes for a whole day. Or try to live outdoors in a temperate area without clothes.
I'll get my feet to hurt at first. In a year, however, they'll grow thick and adapt, so I won't even need shoes on normal ground. Except to protect against broken glass and such.

We do need clothes in temperate climates in winter, but only because we weren't originally designed to live there. Apes are tropical animals. The climate differs. However, the gravity is the same everywhere - and no ape seems to possibly need a bra.


30 millions years of evolution haven't given us [...]
We had most of it, like fur and tough feet, then we lost it, because we didn't really need it much.
But there are basic parts of the body that can carry out their function. Being able to just plain stand on your own isn't the same as cutting steel with your teeth.


Your beliefs are just that: beliefs, quite unsupported by facts.
Actually they are supported by facts. Not only has the homo sapiens species managed to survive without bras until very lately, but it still keeps doing that in many cultures.

Also, I have one interesting fact. Men who practice Penis Quigong have their "ability" very steady through their 60s and even past 70, pretty much for their entire life. Men who don't start losing it at 45 and have trouble using it by 55. I think it too supports the advantages of training versus atrophy.

Are you sure? I've heard they can actually be trained to produce milk if sucked on.

That's not milk. It's leftover mayonnaise from four meals ago.

Then maybe you could clarify them to me?
(Yes, I agree national parks are a good thing, but the way I see it, the need for them is no more "clear" than the need to be civilized.)

What does being civilized have to do with it? Is a man with his shirt off because it's hot outside uncivilized? If not, neither is a woman who does the same.


Care to explain how the absence of a national park would cause people to start dropping over dead?

It wouldn't - not directly anyways. But national parks are generally nature preserves. Given the propensity of the private sector (and quite often the public sector as well) to ignore environmental concerns, it's good to have areas of land set aside in this manner.

Government subsidized student loans are good, they promote a certain degree of equality in higher education and offer opportunities to people who wouldn't otherwise have them,

And there you have it.

You have just adequately justified government subsidized student loans.

It's also important to note that these examples have nothing to do with the government restricting the behavior of individuals and are thus not really good comparisons.

I should think it is obvious. If you see a reality TV show, you chose to turn on the TV, selected that channel, and then settled down to watch. If a fat guy is sits down next to you on the Subway or across from you in a restaurant, you have no choice but to deal with his presence.

Of course I do. I could choose to leave if it really bothers me that much. Just as I could choose to leave if he was wearing a shirt but it was one I didn't like. Just as I could choose to leave if he was wearing ugly orange pants that bothered me.

His looks do not harm me in the least.

When I see it, it becomes my business.

So if I see you out in public and I don't like your shirt, it becomes my business what you're wearing and I should be able to pass laws to keep you from wearing it?

No. Littering and noise pollution are only concerns because we're trying to live in a civil, polite society. That means that you have to make concessions to the people around you. Sometimes that means wearing clothes, sometimes that means turning down your music between 1 AM and 7 AM, sometimes that means not stabbing everything that comes within arms distance.

....because none of those have anything to do with harm that might be caused to others. :rolleyes:

They aren't stressed by the bra: they're stressed by the weight force. The bra reduces the stress on skin and mammary glands by distributing the weight on the shoulders.

Actually, a good bra distributes the weight around the band. Only a small proportion of it should be carried by the shoulders. A bra that distributes too much of the weight through the shoulder straps will also cause back aches and poor posture.

/nitpicky

I have heard that, too. Many times. And it's hard not to notice how many girls have back and posture issues.
My fiancee would disagree. Not wearing a bra gives her all sorts of backbone aches.
Actually, that sounds exactly like not having developed muscles to support the weight, as Vault 10 was saying:
Particularly about 'support': while the bra provides it, that leads to the atrophy of the chest muscles that otherwise can keep the mammary glands well supported and in good shape.
"Backbone aches" are muscle aches. If the ergonomically appropriate system of muscles is not up to par for the task, then another muscle system is going to have to compensate, and the odds are it's going to be uncomfortable.

What does being civilized have to do with it? Is a man with his shirt off because it's hot outside uncivilized? If not, neither is a woman who does the same.

Remember, I'm the one who suggested that everyone (including men) be required to wear a shirt. If you think of it in that context, I'm sure you'll agree (or have a hard time backing up your position; you decide) that my standards are not that unequal.

Here's a thought:
Why not just require everyone to wear a shirt in public?

So, we all know about the TOPFREE movement. Just if you haven't heard of it, it's about rejecting the popular notion that women should wear something over their chest to give male eyes a chance not to lock on their female mammary boobs. That would provide the much needed equality, solving one the worst problems of gender discrimination, i.e. mandatory extra clothing.

But the conservative crowd is, as always, strongly opposed to the topfree ideas, and believes all women must cover their tops, no matter if they're just walking on the street or singing in an opera, making a sandwich or fighting a fire, driving a truck, or gulping down booze with potbellied male truckers.


Even though the liberals have kinda won, a complete US-wide, not to mention worldwide TOPFREE victory is still far out of sight. The modern breed of 'liberal' politician is more concerned with destroying the freedom of gun ownership and cutting economic freedoms, rather than giving people real close-to-the-body liberties, pardon the pun.


But our friends from the strange place where dθ(☉)/dt always exceeds zero (this is a scientific fact, kids!) seem to have developed an alternate way to cope with this problem. And it seems that with a bit of "liberal" legislative effort, it could be made to work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cke2nCp3SY


So, ladies and gentlemen of leisure (what other gentleman would waste his time here?), what do you think about this? Do you like the idea? Will it solve all of your worries, or just some? Would you have one, and, just theoretically, how would you like a world where it was at least traditional?

Well, independent of the personal gratification this would give me, it would be hypocritical not to support this bill. Considering the Western media gives the Islamic world shit all the time for being sexist by forcing women to wear scarves, when we force women to wear shirts over here.

Well, independent of the personal gratification this would give me, it would be hypocritical not to support this bill. Considering the Western media gives the Islamic world shit all the time for being sexist by forcing women to wear scarves, when we force women to wear shirts over here.

So... by not supporting womens rights to be topless, you're agreeing with the terrorists?

I'm ambivalent about the topfree thing. Personally, I don't want to see anyone's (male or female) saggy, baggy, fat, sunburned body parts swaying gently in the wind. I've seen plenty of men who, in my opinion, should wear shirts at all times - long-sleeved, up to the neck, down to the ankles, shirts. Most women should, too. Not because of modesty but because most of us have nothing up there to be proud of. We're, fat, saggy, discolored, covered with stretch marks (not just from pregnancy, either).

Additionally, with all the information we have about sun damage and skin cancer, why do we want to expose even more skin to these harmful things - cloth is far more effective than sunscreen and doesn't wash off when you go swimming, sweat or get rained on.

Um...It doesnt really bother me...Although Saggy, unsightly mammary glands id have the hope theyd cover up...

But, i really dont see how its in the best interests of Women to give all us males the opportunity to oggle them in public....

My fiancee would disagree. Not wearing a bra gives her all sorts of backbone aches.

My gf's a bit different ... her actual boobs hurt if she's without a bra for too long, simply due to the weight of them (no kidding, luckily for me).

And yes, I've offered to be a gentleman and hold them for her.

And yes, it's worked.

And finally no, not nearly as often as I'd like.

"Aren't nice" =/= "causes cancer."

Source, or retract it.

I was asked to support my claim that mechanical stress in gland tissue (expecially mammary gland tissue) is a carcinogenic factor.

Here is something I googled, just to provide some hints at the relationship between mechanical stress of tissues and cancer formation. One should remember, btw, that the presence of cicatrice tissue modifies the response of the tissue to mechanical stress; this effect is obviously amplified in parts stressed by weight like breasts.

http://www.msfhr.org/sub-funding-recipients-profile.asp?award_recipient_id=902
excerpt: Dr. Jiaxu Wang is researching the role of mechanical stress on cancer cells. He is investigating which genes are altered by mechanical stress in breast cancer cells.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081017082011.htm
(this is about colon cancer, interesting though)
excerpt: Genes are not the be all and end all of carcinogenesis. At the Institut Curie, the team of Emmanuel Farge, Inserm Director of Research (UMR 168 CNRS/Institut Curie), has just shown, in collaboration with the Sylvie Robine and her group (UMR144 CNRS/Institut Curie), that mechanical pressure can alter gene expression, and in particular activate the oncogenes(1) Myc and Twist, which are implicated in the early stages of colon cancer.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WCB-4RNR6YP-G&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=df70f94cbfd97102f88d0a53539613b7
(about EM-induced mechanical stress as carcinogenic factor in prostate gland tissue; relationship between mechanical stress and gene behaviour alteration)
excerpt: We hypothesize that an environmental EMF may result in simultaneous, multidirectional and diffuse compression or expansion of these crystalloids (a piezoelectric effect). This would result in a slight mechanical distortion of the prostate, potentially altering cell behavior and enhancing the expression of specific genes, particularly those involved in suppressing apoptosis.

www.utoronto.ca/cctc2007/PDF/Program%20CCTC2007.pdf
(this is a presentation of a conference at Toronto University)
excerpt: "Mechanical stress promotes early breast cancer progression..."


www.lifesci.dundee.ac.uk/research/display_static_page/pages_444
(a study on tissue damage, including damage from mechanical stress, as carcinogenic factor)
excerpt: By studying the control of SUMO modification in normal and cancer cells, ... rapidly to many types of stress in tissue from UV damage to mechanical stress, ...


www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1034/j.1600-0765.2003.00660.x
(about mechanical stress inducing angiogenesis in mouth tissues. angiogenesis plays an important role in developing cancer)
excerpt: As periodontal tissues are constantly exposed to mechanical stress during mastication, the relationship between mechanical stimulation and biochemical phenomena has been extensively investigated.

www.kjronline.org/abstract/view_articletext1.asp?year=0000&page=6
(about metaplasia of adipose tissues: breasts also contain adipose tissue)
excerpt: The first is that cartilage arises from chondro-osseous metaplasias of adipose tissue, presumably as a result of mechanical stress...


So, I'd say, "sources claiming that presence of scars and mechanical factors AREN'T carcinogenic, or retract".

My gf's a bit different ... her actual boobs hurt if she's without a bra for too long, simply due to the weight of them (no kidding, luckily for me). Same situation here.

And yes, I've offered to be a gentleman and hold them for her.
And yes, it's worked.
Same here. Gotta love to be a gentleman.

Everyone likes boobs :)

Both genders cover their sexual parts. Men just don't have any one their chests. This sounds like people acting like "treat people equally" means "treat people identically".

Breasts are no more "sexual parts" than lips, toes, or hands. Indeed, the ONLY reason females have breasts which are differently developed than males' is because of the function of nursing infants.

I would argue that if either gender is going to be compelled to cover their nipples it should be males, because at least females can argue that their breasts are functional organs which may need to be uncovered to feed their child. Male nipples serve no such function.

Particularly about 'support': while the bra provides it, that leads to the atrophy of the chest muscles that otherwise can keep the mammary glands well supported and in good shape.
Good shape? Some one has never seen a Discovery Channel documentary.

Everyone likes boobs :)

Even I like boobs, and I'm a girl.:)

Breasts are no more "sexual parts" than lips, toes, or hands. Indeed, the ONLY reason females have breasts which are differently developed than males' is because of the function of nursing infants.

Well, I've just read an article stating that the only reason human females have notable breasts is because they evolved as a means to attract members (duh...) of opposite sex. :wink:

Remember, I'm the one who suggested that everyone (including men) be required to wear a shirt. If you think of it in that context, I'm sure you'll agree (or have a hard time backing up your position; you decide) that my standards are not that unequal.

Not unequal, no.

I just think they're an unnecessary restriction of freedom.

But, i really dont see how its in the best interests of Women to give all us males the opportunity to oggle them in public....

Is it in the best interests of men to give all us women (and gay guys, of course) the opportunity to oggle them in public?

no it isn't (obvious at all!). we are on the internet. international network. NOT closed to nondominant non"western" cultures. something i think all of us, including myself, need to remember and be more consciencous and considerate about!

also a factor very and directly pertinent to the question at hand.

I don't think it stands for international...

Sure, but breasts aren't the "main attraction point" for plenty of straight men, either - they're just one of several features that the vast majority of straight guys really like looking at. I'm pretty sure a nice-looking male chest has much the same effect on your average straight woman as a nice-looking female chest does on your average straight man (except, of course, that the latter has all sorts of taboos attached at the moment, while the former does not).

No, I have to disagree with you. While I certainly don't mind looking at a man's chest, there is nothing overtly sexual about. Breasts on the other hand, are sexual. They are a symbol of fertility. I assume the "taboos" you refer to are the social ones we face everyday, being that women should have to cover their breasts. While it's fair that women should be able to go top free, we can't say this is because breasts are not sexual. They are sexual, but women should have the same right as men to go topless if they so choose.

My gf's a bit different ... her actual boobs hurt if she's without a bra for too long, simply due to the weight of them (no kidding, luckily for me).

And yes, I've offered to be a gentleman and hold them for her.

And yes, it's worked.

And finally no, not nearly as often as I'd like.

Haha, my boyfriend makes that same offer.

I don't think it stands for international...

It definitely doesn't. It's "inter-networking".

I think it's unfair to force them to wear shirts but I doubt it will change any time soon. Cultural sensitivities never change that fast. Also, who cares, this is one of those stupid things that make no sense. Because nipples are the only thing that is supposed to be chest nudity? How stupid is that? I think it's quite stupid but it doesn't have to make sense, it's one of those social pathologies that just are. If it was logical they wouldn't just ban naked nipples but any kind of tight shirt with no bra or such, throw in low cut tops while you're at it.

No, I have to disagree with you. While I certainly don't mind looking at a man's chest, there is nothing overtly sexual about. Breasts on the other hand, are sexual. They are a symbol of fertility. I assume the "taboos" you refer to are the social ones we face everyday, being that women should have to cover their breasts. While it's fair that women should be able to go top free, we can't say this is because breasts are not sexual. They are sexual, but women should have the same right as men to go topless if they so choose.

There is no difference between male breasts or female breasts, add the correct hormones to a male, and you'll get Knockers in no time.

No, I have to disagree with you. While I certainly don't mind looking at a man's chest, there is nothing overtly sexual about. Breasts on the other hand, are sexual. They are a symbol of fertility. I assume the "taboos" you refer to are the social ones we face everyday, being that women should have to cover their breasts. While it's fair that women should be able to go top free, we can't say this is because breasts are not sexual. They are sexual, but women should have the same right as men to go topless if they so choose.

By that logic, there are few parts of the body that aren't sexual, and that's being arbitrary to the ones that allegedly aren't.

I welcome women taking over the world if they do so by hypnotizing us guys by going topless :p

I was asked to support my claim that mechanical stress in gland tissue (expecially mammary gland tissue) is a carcinogenic factor.



The difficulty is that without concrete evidence that wearing bras had, in fact, reduced the breast cancer rates, your statement about the mechanical stress in gland tissue, is pointless.

What I mean is this, thousand of years people have run around, and for some parts of the world, still do, without anything supporting their breasts; according to your theory then, we should have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of breast cancers occurring, when in fact, since about 1969, the incident rates have been INCREASING, not decreasing.

The idea that woman 'need' bras for support, as the other user was trying to point out, is rather false, because there is a system in place to hold them up, relatively. The problem now is that bra wearing has gotten to be to the social norm for so long, that, when women take off their bras, it hurts, not because the breasts themselves can't hold themselves up, but because wearing a bra for all these years has basically destroyed this system.

Imagine, if you will, someone who is confined to a bed for several years, if that person was to try to get up out of bed, after these some odd years, they'd find themselves unable to walk; why? Because they haven't used those muscles in such a long time, those muscles are no longer up to task of holding the body upright, for the duration of a stroll. BUT, that does not mean, in any sense of the word, that humans NEED a wheel chair to get around.

The human body is not a static thing, it's always changing, which is, for the most part, a very good thing, without it, we'd be unable to heal ourselves, but BUT! that means we also sometimes end up disabling muscles we don't use very often, and when it comes to a point when we do need them...they just fall flat at the task, requiring more muscles then normal, to perform the task, muscles not really built to do what is being asked of them, although they can do it in a pinch if needed.

tl:dr version: if you find your breasts are hurting when you don't have a bra on, and you find that you've worn a bra all your life, it's probable then that the use of your bra has caused the muscles and ligaments that would normally support your breasts, to go soft, and now can no longer do the task.

There is no difference between male breasts or female breasts, add the correct hormones to a male, and you'll get Knockers in no time.

Add the correct hormones, and you can do just about anything. That doesn't mean it's normal.

(Then again, what does "normal" mean, anyway, in an age where it's socially acceptable to walk around three-quarters naked?)

Do you like boobs a lot?
(Yes, I like boobs a lot.)
Boobs a lot, boobs a lot.
(You gotta like boobs a lot.)
Really like boobs a lot.
(You gotta like boobs a lot.)
Boobs a lot, boobs a lot.
(You gotta like boobs a lot.)

--Holy Modal Rounder, "Boobs A Lot"

Seriously, this nonsense of making every lifestyle choice and desire to deliberately offend into a civil rights issue has got to stop.

If you want to go topless, learn how to pole dance. ;)

Do you like boobs a lot?
(Yes, I like boobs a lot.)
Boobs a lot, boobs a lot.
(You gotta like boobs a lot.)
Really like boobs a lot.
(You gotta like boobs a lot.)
Boobs a lot, boobs a lot.
(You gotta like boobs a lot.)

--Holy Modal Rounder, "Boobs A Lot"

Seriously, this nonsense of making every lifestyle choice and desire to deliberately offend into a civil rights issue has got to stop.

If you want to go topless, learn how to pole dance. ;)


Such educated comments.

Me too. And I find the way some men sway their hips when they change position while talking to someone else on foot is highly sexy. And these hips are always covered by either jeans or work pants so...

Ye gods, yes. I drool over slender-fingered pianist-hands more than I ever have over any genitalia. As far as I'm concerned, if we covered up body parts based only on their capacity to be sexually exciting, people would mostly be walking around in ski masks, mittens, and very little else. :p

I have slender fingers, but they are stubby... I have large palms but inherited the short fingers of my mother :(.

By all accounts however, I am quite good with my hands ;)

The difficulty is that without concrete evidence that wearing bras had, in fact, reduced the breast cancer rates, your statement about the mechanical stress in gland tissue, is pointless.
I see that you fail to discuss the material I was requested to provide. And you don't provide material either. So...

What I mean is this, thousand of years people have run around, and for some parts of the world, still do, without anything supporting their breasts; according to your theory then, we should have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of breast cancers occurring, when in fact, since about 1969, the incident rates have been INCREASING, not decreasing.
1st fail.Supports for breasts were introduced long time BEFORE 1969.
2nd fail.Cancer rate INCREASE because human average lifespan INCREASES. Since cancer takes a lot of time to develope, of course you won't find a lot of cancer (including breast cancer) in a population with an average lifespan of 35 years. Death by cancer is the byproduct of not dying by faster killers, like pneumonia, hunger, war.
3rd fail.You dismiss totally the OTHER carcinogenic factors like: direct sun radiation, environmental factors (chemical pollution, exposure to radioactivity), use of teratogenic medicines.

...The idea that woman 'need' bras for support, as the other user was trying to point out, is rather false, because there is a system in place to hold them up, relatively.

"Relatively".


tl:dr version: if you find your breasts are hurting when you don't have a bra on, and you find that you've worn a bra all your life, it's probable then that the use of your bra has caused the muscles and ligaments that would normally support your breasts, to go soft, and now can no longer do the task.

False.
As you should know, humans are selected via sexual reproduction. This means that what happens to people ABOVE the age of sexual reproduction (40/50 for women in countries with the longest lifespan) doesn't take part in selection. Since breast cancer usually happens after age 40, you can practically see why human female breasts haven't been selected to be kept up without support for more than 40 years.

There is this idea around, that the human body is an intrinsecally perfect machine and that it doesn't need prosthetics. This idea is stupid.

Btw, care to provide some source for your claims?

Correct me if I'm wrong: basically, you assume that women wear bras out of social-aesthetical motivations only. Since I know many women who don't give a fuck about social-aesthetical pressure, and still wear bras because they are more comfortable with them, I'd have to dismiss your ideas.

No, I have to disagree with you. While I certainly don't mind looking at a man's chest, there is nothing overtly sexual about. Breasts on the other hand, are sexual. .... They are sexual, but women should have the same right as men to go topless if they so choose.

Totally seconded.

1st fail.Supports for breasts were introduced long time BEFORE 1969.
2nd fail.Cancer rate INCREASE because human average lifespan INCREASES. Since cancer takes a lot of time to develope, of course you won't find a lot of cancer (including breast cancer) in a population with an average lifespan of 35 years. Death by cancer is the byproduct of not dying by faster killers, like pneumonia, hunger, war.
3rd fail.You dismiss totally the OTHER carcinogenic factors like: direct sun radiation, environmental factors (chemical pollution, exposure to radioactivity), use of teratogenic medicines.
I'm not 'dismissing' anything, what I am, however, pointing out, is that according to your studies, we should be seeing massive rates of breast cancer in populations that don't use bras (or for that matter, any sort of top) and a significantly lower rate in populations where bras are the norm, if not wearing any sort of support really causes damage to the breast's internal structure, and that damage really causes cancer.

Finally, it would seem to me that you're the one dismissing the more potent carcinogenic factors in the environment, in favor of pushing your view that bra wearing is 'good health'.




"Relatively".

Your point?


False.
As you should know, humans are selected via sexual reproduction. This means that what happens to people ABOVE the age of sexual reproduction (40/50 for women in countries with the longest lifespan) doesn't take part in selection. Since breast cancer usually happens after age 40, you can practically see why human female breasts haven't been selected to be kept up without support for more than 40 years.
Absolute nonsense, the structures that are developed to support the breasts don't magically disappear after the age of 40, and, while humans do begin to wear out after 40 or so, this has nothing to do with sexual section at all.

I mean, according to this line of reasoning, when people's bones thin out when they get older, it must because we haven't sexually selected old people to have strong skeletons because they don't need them for banging on one another.


There is this idea around, that the human body is an intrinsecally perfect machine and that it doesn't need prosthetics. This idea is stupid.
Says who? You? Didn't you try to tell us that humans 'need' shoes because our feet are too soft? In spite of the fact we know a human's foot toughens up after a while without wearing shoes?

Humans are far more flexible then machines when it comes to the environment, and we certainty do not need 'prosthetics' to get along. While I'd concede that, perhaps we need to wear clothing, we only need to wear clothing because we only escaped from Africa yesterday, and we haven't had the time to develop thicker skin/body hair/etc.


Correct me if I'm wrong: basically, you assume that women wear bras out of social-aesthetical motivations only. Since I know many women who don't give a fuck about social-aesthetical pressure, and still wear bras because they are more comfortable with them, I'd have to dismiss your ideas.

No, I'm assuming those woman who say they're more comfortable in a bra are only more comfortable because they've never developed the tissues that would normally hold their breasts up. This isn't isn't any different then someone who hasn't exercised in a long time, getting up and going for a run; of course it's going to hurt like shit, you've spent your whole life, sitting around doing nothing!

No, I have to disagree with you. While I certainly don't mind looking at a man's chest, there is nothing overtly sexual about. Breasts on the other hand, are sexual.

There's nothing overtly sexual about breasts either. Our society has decided that they are sexual, but there is no reason that they must be seen that way.

Meanwhile, I can quite definitely say that the sight of a nice male chest gets me going. It's definitely sexual.

They are a symbol of fertility.

Not really. The presence or size of breasts will not tell you whether or not a woman is fertile.


Seriously, this nonsense of making every lifestyle choice and desire to deliberately offend into a civil rights issue has got to stop.

Equal treatment isn't a civil rights issue?

And what on earth makes you think that the only reason a woman might want to remove her shirt is to offend anyone?


I'm not 'dismissing' anything, what I am, however, pointing out, is that according to your studies, we should be seeing massive rates of breast cancer in populations that don't use bras (or for that matter, any sort of top) and a significantly lower rate in populations where bras are the norm, if not wearing any sort of support really causes damage to the breast's internal structure, and that damage really causes cancer.

.....except that the different populations have other differences that would affect those numbers as well.

If we had two populations that were the same in demographics, disease, etc. except for bra-wearing, we could test this hypothesis. Otherwise, it's largely speculation.

Absolute nonsense, the structures that are developed to support the breasts don't magically disappear after the age of 40, and, while humans do begin to wear out after 40 or so, this has nothing to do with sexual section at all.

Bra-wearing or not, a woman's breast tissue changes over time. It gets less firm and begins to sag. The weight distribution changes. It's certainly not a sudden process, but it happens.

I mean, according to this line of reasoning, when people's bones thin out when they get older, it must because we haven't sexually selected old people to have strong skeletons because they don't need them for banging on one another.

While you've worded it rather oddly, this is somewhat true. There is no evolutionary pressure to keep the bones strong after one's reproductive years and child-rearing years. Likewise, there is no evolutionary pressure that would change the design of arteries that tend to clog over time - because the actual heart attack or stroke generally occurs after the person has already had and raised their children.

No, I'm assuming those woman who say they're more comfortable in a bra are only more comfortable because they've never developed the tissues that would normally hold their breasts up. This isn't isn't any different then someone who hasn't exercised in a long time, getting up and going for a run; of course it's going to hurt like shit, you've spent your whole life, sitting around doing nothing!

It isn't as if women are wearing bras from the start of their lives. We begin to wear bras when we feel that it is necessary. Quite often, a young woman (whose breast tissue is still very firm all on its own) will go without a bra on a regular basis. It's only after everything starts to droop on its own that most of us feel we need one all the time.

.....except that the different populations have other differences that would affect those numbers as well.

If we had two populations that were the same in demographics, disease, etc. except for bra-wearing, we could test this hypothesis. Otherwise, it's largely speculation.

This is true, but, my point is, if this 'damage' being done to the gland tissue of the breast is really as bad as he would have us believe, then we should see it as a primary cause of cancer, and not wearing bras, verses wearing bras, even in two different cultures, should produce a notable increase in cancer rates in the one with out, if not supporting breasts was a primary carcinogen; you have to remember not all carcinogens are stupid dangerous, genetics and radiation are two 'very dangerous' ones, as is some viruses; conversely, however, some carcinogens are not nearly as dangerous, such as, say, not eating properly.


Bra-wearing or not, a woman's breast tissue changes over time. It gets less firm and begins to sag. The weight distribution changes. It's certainly not a sudden process, but it happens.
I'm not suggesting that it doesn't, I'm just saying that the idea that if you wear bras or such, that it's going to save your breasts, is rather idiotic, and is probably more a marketing ploy then any real fact.



While you've worded it rather oddly, this is somewhat true. There is no evolutionary pressure to keep the bones strong after one's reproductive years and child-rearing years. Likewise, there is no evolutionary pressure that would change the design of arteries that tend to clog over time - because the actual heart attack or stroke generally occurs after the person has already had and raised their children.

Well, what I was trying to get at, is that this person seems to be suggesting that the only reason the breasts stay 'up' is because of evolutionary pressure, and that evolution is going to screw with you if you don't use a bra or such.

Evolution doesn't say "oh hey, no pressure for this any more, let's just drop it off at the bus station" mid way though someone's life, which is more or less what this person is suggesting; it's not needed any more, so it just stops putting up a pretense or such. The body wears out, but it's not as if you can select for it not wearing out; you can select older age, it's true, and better foods will help you live longer, but, ultimately, the body is going to stop working as well as it did.



It isn't as if women are wearing bras from the start of their lives. We begin to wear bras when we feel that it is necessary. Quite often, a young woman (whose breast tissue is still very firm all on its own) will go without a bra on a regular basis. It's only after everything starts to droop on its own that most of us feel we need one all the time.

Quite often young woman are told to wear bras; why do you think we have things like 'training bras' and such not?

And I'm quite aware of the 'pencil' test, but my point is that you don't really need a bra; breasts are always going to be a little bit droopy, because the breast isn't composed of very solid tissue, but a little droop is completely natural given the structure of the breast, and the ligaments and chest wall will keep them up, no help needed. However, a lot of woman are taught that if they don't start wearing bras the minute their breasts get to a certain size, that they'll be completely wrecked.

Quite often young woman are told to wear bras; why do you think we have things like 'training bras' and such not?

The same reason we have dolls that eat and pee. Young girls often want to act more grown up than they are.

And I'm quite aware of the 'pencil' test, but my point is that you don't really need a bra; breasts are always going to be a little bit droopy, because the breast isn't composed of very solid tissue, but a little droop is completely natural given the structure of the breast, and the ligaments and chest wall will keep them up, no help needed. However, a lot of woman are taught that if they don't start wearing bras the minute their breasts get to a certain size, that they'll be completely wrecked.

I don't want my boobs to be droopy. Thus, I wear a garment that holds them up and makes them more perky - sort of like they were in high school all on their own. It's nice. =)

This garment also holds them more stable if I'm running or on a bouncy bus or something like that. This is also a good thing because too much bouncing can cause pain.

There is no difference between male breasts or female breasts, add the correct hormones to a male, and you'll get Knockers in no time.

There is a very distinct difference between men and women's chests. Unless a man has a condition called gynecomastia, men don't have "breasts". Hormones are essentially what makes us male or female, so if you change those hormones you're not talking about an "average"/"normal" human male any more.

There's nothing overtly sexual about breasts either. Our society has decided that they are sexual, but there is no reason that they must be seen that way.

Meanwhile, I can quite definitely say that the sight of a nice male chest gets me going. It's definitely sexual.



Not really. The presence or size of breasts will not tell you whether or not a woman is fertile.

Female breasts are symbols of fertility. They provide life to children though breast milk. They are sexual. Even though symbols of sexuality change from society to society, this is what is recognised in many cultures.

But it doesn't mean they should have to be covered.

There is a very distinct difference between men and women's chests. Unless a man has a condition called gynecomastia, men don't have "breasts". Men don't have mammary glands. Hormones are essentially what makes us male or female, so if you change those hormones you're not talking about an "average"/"normal" human male any more.

Men don't have mammary glands?

Don't make me laugh, just because they failed to develop (hint, estrogen is needed for development) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Men don't have mammary glands?

Don't make me laugh, just because they failed to develop (hint, estrogen is needed for development) doesn't mean they don't exist.

Fine. Men don't have developed mammary glands.

I for one would be unnecessarily distracted from my work and play (both by the hideously ugly and the beautiful). So no, you don't get the right to infringe upon my line of sight at will.

The OP mentioned that sexual harassment rules might have to be relaxed in order for this to work and I also think that would be a step back for women's rights.

Nope, I'm not seeing it.

Says who? You? Didn't you try to tell us that humans 'need' shoes because our feet are too soft? In spite of the fact we know a human's foot toughens up after a while without wearing shoes?

As someone who was a dancer and iceskater, no matter how tough your feet get, they -like any other part of the body- still won't handle being tortured. Walking across the desert barefoot, for example, would damage most people's feet, and if they do "toughen" up, they will be ugly and calloused and still probably hurt a bit. The human body isn't infallible.

Humans are far more flexible then machines when it comes to the environment, and we certainty do not need 'prosthetics' to get along. While I'd concede that, perhaps we need to wear clothing, we only need to wear clothing because we only escaped from Africa yesterday, and we haven't had the time to develop thicker skin/body hair/etc.

It would take centuries of evolution for that to happen. Using your logic, I should get a tan by going in the sun everyday, because tanned skin will then burn less easily. Except, in 20 years, I'll end up with skin cancer.

Quite often young woman are told to wear bras; why do you think we have things like 'training bras' and such not?

Because companies make money out of little girls, because little girls always want to be older than they are.

I think training bras are ridiculous. You shouldn't wear a bra until you need one, but it would be difficult to explain that to a child. I know when I was little, I begged my mother for one, and she said no until I was about 10. I've seen them marketed at 5 year olds!

And I'm quite aware of the 'pencil' test, but my point is that you don't really need a bra; breasts are always going to be a little bit droopy, because the breast isn't composed of very solid tissue, but a little droop is completely natural given the structure of the breast, and the ligaments and chest wall will keep them up, no help needed. However, a lot of woman are taught that if they don't start wearing bras the minute their breasts get to a certain size, that they'll be completely wrecked.

I've worn a bra - usually push up bras, in fact - about 6 in 7 days of a week since I was 13. I have absolutely no "droop", so I've always wondered whether I actually need to wear a bra. I guess I partially do because it's a social norm, but when I walk, go out or do exercise, I always wear one because it's uncomfortable not to. I think it's wrong that women are told their breasts will be "wrecked" if they don't wear a bra, but on the other hand I do see how bras are beneficial. My main concern is whether wearing push up bras could actually be damaging because it's pushing the breasts upwards, which could stretch the tissue.I definitely do believe that it's important to wear a bra if you have breasts B or larger when exercising.

As someone who was a dancer and iceskater, no matter how tough your feet get, they -like any other part of the body- still won't handle being tortured. Walking across the desert barefoot, for example, would damage most people's feet, and if they do "toughen" up, they will be ugly and calloused and still probably hurt a bit. The human body isn't infallible.
No one is suggesting that, but it's less fallible then your giving credit to; the human foot can survive desert temperatures if it's use to such heat, although as you say it would probably end up doing a number on the foot.


I think training bras are ridiculous. You shouldn't wear a bra until you need one,
The point I, and others, have tried to make is that you really don't need a bra for most woman most of the time.


I've worn a bra - usually push up bras, in fact - about 6 in 7 days of a week since I was 13. I have absolutely no "droop", so I've always wondered whether I actually need to wear a bra. I guess I partially do because it's a social norm, but when I walk, go out or do exercise, I always wear one because it's uncomfortable not to. I think it's wrong that women are told their breasts will be "wrecked" if they don't wear a bra, but on the other hand I do see how bras are beneficial. My main concern is whether wearing push up bras could actually be damaging because it's pushing the breasts upwards, which could stretch the tissue.I definitely do believe that it's important to wear a bra if you have breasts B or larger when exercising.

You sound like someone who's trying to justify something that has no real justification; I'm not suggesting woman shouldn't exercise without a bra, but men wear jockstraps when they do high-impact exercises; the difference is that men don't normally walk around wearing jockstraps, and woman do, even when they don't need to.

You should never do something just because the majority says you should, no one should, we should always question our beliefs and our customs at every turn, and throw out what makes no sense.

You sound like someone who's trying to justify something that has no real justification;

You're having a go at me, why, exactly?

I'm not suggesting woman shouldn't exercise without a bra, but men wear jockstraps when they do high-impact exercises; the difference is that men don't normally walk around wearing jockstraps, and woman do, even when they don't need to.

I didn't SAY that you were suggesting women shouldn't exercise without a bra. I was acknowledging your viewpoint and then explaining my own thoughts on the subject.

I'm assuming you're male, so I'm going to explain this to you. Walking down the street is still exercise. If I walk to the shops, my perfectly perky tits still bounce if I don't wear a bra. I agree that importance of wearing a bra has probably been blown out of proportion by bra manufacturing companies. I agree that women probably don't need to wear a bra all the time, for example when they're out to dinner.

You should never do something just because the majority says you should, no one should, we should always question our beliefs and our customs at every turn, and throw out what makes no sense.

You're making it seem like bras are akin to, I don't know, marrying at age 10. It's just tits, for god's sake.

Female breasts are symbols of fertility. They provide life to children though breast milk. They are sexual. Even though symbols of sexuality change from society to society, this is what is recognised in many cultures.

(a) A sign that a woman can likely feed a child she bears does not mean that she is fertile.

(b) Unless feeding a child breast milk is sexual (and I would say it most definitely is not), there is no reason to declare breasts sexual because they are used for this purpose.

But it doesn't mean they should have to be covered.

Of course not. Interestingly, it isn't the breast tissue as a whole that has to be covered anyways. It's the nipple - something men and women both have, so the discussion of sexual vs. non-sexual is really a moot point in the discussion of whether or not the nipple should be covered.

I for one would be unnecessarily distracted from my work and play (both by the hideously ugly and the beautiful). So no, you don't get the right to infringe upon my line of sight at will.

LOL. "I don't want to see it so I get to control your behavior!"

Yeah, that's convincing.

The OP mentioned that sexual harassment rules might have to be relaxed in order for this to work and I also think that would be a step back for women's rights.

(a) There is absolutely no reason that sexual harassment rules would need to be relaxed.
(b) Increased freedom is a step back for rights? You are kidding, right?

LOL. "I don't want to see it so I get to control your behavior!"

Yeah, that's convincing.
I don't like to wear clothes at all, yet I am prevented from being nude nearly as often as I would like, by precisely that rationale.

Of course not. Interestingly, it isn't the breast tissue as a whole that has to be covered anyways. It's the nipple - something men and women both have, so the discussion of sexual vs. non-sexual is really a moot point in the discussion of whether or not the nipple should be covered.

That's an interesting point actually.

(a) A sign that a woman can likely feed a child she bears does not mean that she is fertile.

(b) Unless feeding a child breast milk is sexual (and I would say it most definitely is not), there is no reason to declare breasts sexual because they are used for this purpose.



Of course not. Interestingly, it isn't the breast tissue as a whole that has to be covered anyways. It's the nipple - something men and women both have, so the discussion of sexual vs. non-sexual is really a moot point in the discussion of whether or not the nipple should be covered.



LOL. "I don't want to see it so I get to control your behavior!"

Yeah, that's convincing.



(a) There is absolutely no reason that sexual harassment rules would need to be relaxed.
(b) Increased freedom is a step back for rights? You are kidding, right?


The reason the rules would have to be relaxed is that it would open up a lot of avenues for false attacks against men (and oher women even) in general. You can't reasonably expect to have the freedom to put a whole generation of people at a disadvantage by forcing a new culture of toplessness on them and then criminalizing people who are either attracted or repulsed by what they are now forced to see. Aren't you big on not legislating morality?

The reason the rules would have to be relaxed is that it would open up a lot of avenues for false attacks against men (and oher women even) in general.

You don't have to relax rules because some people lie. That's silly.

You simply punish the liars.

You can't reasonably expect to have the freedom to put a whole generation of people at a disadvantage by forcing a new culture of toplessness on them and then criminalizing people who are either attracted or repulsed by what they are now forced to see.

(a) No one would be have a "culture of toplessness" forced upon them. They can either go topless or not, just like anyone else. If they don't want to, they don't have to.

The idea that allowing something forces it on anyone is ridiculous.

(b) Neither attraction nor repulsion is criminalized. Harassment is. If someone can't be attracted to someone or repulsed by them without engaging in harassment, that person is clearly unable to function in society.

Aren't you big on not legislating morality?

Yes, I am. I expect someone to be able to show harm for an action to be illegal. A person who is being harassed can show harm.