Shirtless Women

[The Last Conformist]

So? I didn't say that we do.

 

[stormbind]

This would ruin the local jewleries. No way. Who than would buy earrings anymore.

On the contrary, just think of all the jewelry designed for covering ears

 

[Akka]

Well, yes, sorry, misread your sentence and thought it meant that disagreeing with your culture COULDN'T mean that you had issues.

Need more sleep

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, yes, sorry, misread your sentence and thought it meant that disagreeing with your culture COULDN'T mean that you had issues.

Need more sleep

No problem.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Let's show our support for top-free rights by letting Ontario politicians know that breasts and bodies don't have to be sexual. Let's remember that one of our species' identifying characteristic is that we are mammals - we feed our young from our mammary glands. That's what our breasts are really all about.

This is the part that really set me off. Im sorry but breasts and bodies DO have to be sexual. You cant wipe away millions of years of evolution with a trendy political agenda. Breasts are, and will remain sexual, whether theyre covered up or not. Their are physical differences between men and women, and theres nothing wrong with that. You know what the above statement I quoted reminds me of? Female circumcision as practiced in Africa. Both are attempting to rob women of their sexuality in order to advance a political or social agenda.

@Last, topless sunbathing has nothing to do with trying to pretend that womens breasts arent sexual, on the contrary, topless sunbathing is about making the breasts MORE attractive, not less.

@Redwolf, Im not a prude because I disagree with Gwen. Its just that I live in the real world, and I know for a fact that if suddenly women started going around topless, it would lead to an increase in sexual assaults (which is already a big problem), and would turn women into mere sexual objects to an even greater extent than they are now. You yourself said that you have yet to see a topless women anywhere as a result of this ruling. Did you ever ask yourself why that is? Its because normal, average women understand perfectly well that if they did go topless in public, theyd be more vulnerable and less safe. Its hard enough to get men to take women seriously and see them as equals, do you really think being topless would make it any easier?

 

[RedWolf]

You yourself said that you have yet to see a topless women anywhere as a result of this ruling. Did you ever ask yourself why that is? Its because normal, average women understand perfectly well that if they did go topless in public, theyd be more vulnerable and less safe. Its hard enough to get men to take women seriously and see them as equals, do you really think being topless would make it any easier?

I'm not so sure that I agree with the idea that topless women will lead to more sexual assaults. This implies that most men are just animals, unable to control their own desires. Sexual assult is rarely about "nakedness" or attraction to the female body - it's more about control and domination. I just doubt that some naked breasts are going to turn average males into rapists or further convince potential rapists to commit these crimes.

Besides - women already wear revealing clothes, bikini tops etc in public and in many ways this can be more sexual then a naked breast. Consider lingerie for example... Lingerie exists because the nake breast is simply a human organ - erotic yes - but in the end just a body part. Lingerie (or other revealing sexy clothing) dresses the body up making it alluring and attractive and exciting.

Besides - even if true this argument isn't enough to restrict the rights of half the population. You don't ban something for one person because it MIGHT encourage someone else to commit a crime. It's like saying I can't drive a nice car because i encourages car jacking. Or I can't wear a nice, expensive watch because it encourages pick pockets or muggers. Instead we crack down on the CRIME....

 

[RedWolf]

And in some cultures it's appropriate (sometimes LEGAL) to kill your wife if you catch her cheating on you.

OUR culture, HERE, sez baring the bazoombas is inappropriate. We as individuals really are unimportant here. It's what the group sez that counts.

Fair enough - we as a society say it's inapropriate. But that's exactly what we're debating here - whether society should or should not say it's inappropriate. Opinions are changing and if we allow toplessness - and society fails to fall apart then in my view we as a society have decided that it IS appropriate.

 

[RedWolf]

Part of this issue for feminists is ownership - and control of their own bodies.

Have you considered the absurdity of a society that allows corporations to exploit the mostly naked breast for profit while selling beer, sports, music videos and just about everything else yet doesn't allow women the rights to bare in a non-sexual way their OWN breasts while walking down the street?

Everyday we are bombarded by boobs - commercials, movies, billboards, music videos, magazines... yet as soon as we start talking about allowing women exactly the same rights as men we start talking as if the sky is falling. Maybe, possibly we would develop a healthy relationship with female breasts.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Everyday we are bombarded by boobs - commercials, movies, billboards, music videos, magazines... yet as soon as we start talking about allowing women exactly the same rights as men we start talking as if the sky is falling. Maybe, possibly we would develop a healthy relationship with female breasts.

You can't surely be comparing a man's chest and a woman's?

 

[Mise]

Red Wolf has changed my mind on an issue!

I think I could add "so what?" to every single arguement made by people opposing legalising bare breasted women. I challenge anyone to tell me:
a) why society deems bare breasts a taboo
b) why it should matter that society deems bare breasts a taboo
c) why it should matter that society deems breats implicitly sexual

(before you ask, yes, I have read the thread, but I don't think I saw any answers that couldn't be answered with "so what?")

Well, maybe not hard and cold.

I think he was talking about nipples.

You can't surely be comparing a man's chest and a woman's?

I agree. There is no comparison between a man's chest and a woman's. Does that make a difference?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Male chests don't serve the drinks, and are usually of a different development; they therefore don't make it on to the list of the rude bits, save for those with very niche tastes.
As for women and other alien species going around with no shirts, it simply will not do. At the very least they should be wearing a plain blouse, sensible cardigan and a shawl to cover their heads and necks with. All else should be banned under the law.

 

[RedWolf]

Red Wolf has changed my mind on an issue!

Woo-hoo!

This is absolutely a first for me! Possibly the first ever such case on CFC where somebody has changed their mind based on a debate in here?!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

No, there was an occasion in late 2001/ early 02 when FearlessLeader2 changed his mind on the issue of capital punishment in a debate, if I can recall. That was a notable incident among several...

 

[RedWolf]

You can't surely be comparing a man's chest and a woman's?

Yes.

From my earlier post:

"Has anybody ever considered what the big deal is with female breasts? Let's face it - the male and female breast is essentially the same - except for the fatty "protrusion". YET women can usually show their entire breast EXCEPT for their nipples because THATS the "naughty part". The irony here of course is that the nipple is the part of the breast that looks almost identical for both sexes. The part that's different is quite regularly shown when wearing bathing suits, revealing shirts, on TV, in movies etc."

The only "difference" between the male and female breast is the fatty protrusion and we ALREADY allow women to reveal that pretty much completely as long as the nipple is covered. And since we're talking about what is "appropriate" then lets admit that society has already deemed THIS to be appropriate. The "inapporopriate" part is the nipple yet this is part is IDENTICAL to a male nipple. So sure - there is a difference between the male and female breasts but we already consider that difference allowable...

So what this means is that we have a law restricting women from doing EXACTLY the same thing as men - showing their nipples. This is inequality. It's like saying "men can show their ankles but women cannot"... And since these body parts are identical looking this comes down to male control over a woman's body which is both discriminatory and unconstitutional.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Red, I'll ask you again: if everything you say is true, then why havent you seen any topless women around? Why do you yourself say that Gwen probably never went topless again, after winning the case? I'll answer both questions: because its a utopian, abstract concept that has no bearing on reality. Sure it would be great if we lived in a utopia where we could all pretend that womens breasts arent sexual, and we could all have a big, topless, politically correct hug with no sexual tension, but it aint happenin. No matter how many laws are passed, men arent going to stop being attracted to womens breasts.

Maybe, possibly we would develop a healthy relationship with female breasts.

When did it become 'unhealthy' to be turned on by womens breasts?

 

[RedWolf]

No, there was an occasion in late 2001/ early 02 when FearlessLeader2 changed his mind on the issue of capital punishment in a debate, if I can recall. That was a notable incident among several...

Fair enough - so we're probably looking at less then 10 such incidents.

It's certainly my first time ever changing somebody's mind as far as I know.

Too bad it's only a frivilous issue such as nekked breasts and not something earth shattering such as foreign or economic policy.

 

[cegman]

Redwolf if nipples are exposed who knows what those little 3-6 year olds who still remeber the good tasting??? milk that comes out of there and jumps on them.

 

[RedWolf]

Red, I'll ask you again: if everything you say is true, then why havent you seen any topless women around? Why do you yourself say that Gwen probably never went topless again, after winning the case? I'll answer both questions: because its a utopian, abstract concept that has no bearing on reality. Sure it would be great if we lived in a utopia where we could all pretend that womens breasts arent sexual, and we could all have a big, topless, politically correct hug with no sexual tension, but it aint happenin. No matter how many laws are passed, men arent going to stop being attracted to womens breasts.

When did it become 'unhealthy' to be turned on by womens breasts?

It's not "unhealthy" to be attracted to them. But if it causes more sexual assaults or causes men to walk around slobbering like idiots then that is indeed unhealthy.

Why haven't I seen more women walking around topless? I guess because they choose not to. "Why" is irrelevant. The issue is about choice. It's about haveing the ability to make a choice about their own bodies regardless of what their choice is.

A great many women support abortion for instance but also would never personally choose to have one under any circumstances. Many women believe that women should be allowed to serve in the armed forces yet would never ever join. This comes down to equality. About a male dominated society not being able to make that choice for them.

 

[RedWolf]

Does anybody truly think that things would change drastically if women started to go topless?

Breasts are sexual but not by themselves. I mean it's not as if nekked breasts aren't available on a whim anyway. Rent a porno... download some free porn from the internet. Big deal.

If topless women became frequent for a while men would stare and maybe follow them around but that would get old in probably a week. It's just too much effort when a look at naked breasts are available in so many other more convenient ways.

And I'm not prosposing that breasts become "de-sexualized". Few women would propose this as they are after all erogenous zones. Breasts would always be sexual IN A SEXUAL SITUATION with your partner just not randomly on the street.

Look at ear lobes for instance. They're errogenous zones yet we see them every single day. I don't follow women around staring at their ear lobes slobbering at the mouth BUT with my girlfriend they become errogenous in a sexual situation. Ear lobes are essentially "de-sexualized" errogenous zones except for when they have context.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Im afraid the "Why" is not only relevant, its the whole point. Do you have any female friends, acquiantances? Ask them if theyd like to walk around in public topless. When they tell you no, they wouldnt, ask them why. Im not talking about asking whacked out college hippy chicks, I mean real women.