Poll - Should Women Be Allowed By Law To Show Their Breasts in Public?

[scarbowl]

A man going topless and a woman going topless are not at all the same. Women's breasts are sexual - just as are the genitals. So a woman has two "sets" of sexual characteristics while a man has one. So she has to cover an extra set. So what? It isn't a matter of fairness any more than that a man can't birth a child. It's a consequence of being male and female. There is no "human rights" component here. Sheesh!

[Dan And Jennifer]

Originally Posted by scarbowl

A man going topless and a woman going topless are not at all the same. Women's breasts are sexual - just as are the genitals.

No, they're definitely not the same. A man can't breastfeed a baby. But nobody said it was the same, the only question was whether it's discriminatory without reasonable basis.

Not long ago women couldn't show their ankles in public (yes, here in the U.S.), because that was arousing to men, thus not allowed (by the men in power at the time).

And in some parts of the world today, the men in power deemed that a woman must be covered head to toe with a burkah because anything less would be considered "pornographic" by the men who made those laws. It's really no different, just a different grade of the same concept.

Watch the two videos at the beginning of this thread for a more in depth discussion on this. Many people's initial reaction to this question is "no way, of course breasts should be covered", which is exactly why we took the time to lay out the broader list of relevant points.

And check out the surprising poll results - as well as some of the great points my by other posters in this thread.

"Public indecency laws" to this effect are being overturned by many courts where these laws are actually challenged. For example, New York City.

This is because these laws are arbitrarily discriminatory to women (read: laws made by men for women in previous centuries when men though themselves to be superior to women); and also because breasts are not sexual actually organs.

While breasts are definitely erogenous zones, so many other perfectly visible parts of the body.

The point really has nothing to do with whether various men (or women) particularly wish to see bare chested women in public. Frankly there are lots of bare chested men walking around who would be well advised to put something on - but they have a legal right to walk around bare chested all they want. As we point out in the two videos.

The real issue here is to address discriminatory situations and laws on the books today - just like similar issues in recent times, dealing with people of different skin colors or sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by scarbowl

So a woman has two "sets" of sexual characteristics while a man has one. So she has to cover an extra set. So what? It isn't a matter of fairness any more than that a man can't birth a child. It's a consequence of being male and female. There is no "human rights" component here. Sheesh!

A man being able to give birth to a child is a biological impossibility, which is not directly comparable to one group's set of personals preferences as to what "should" and "shouldn't" be shown in public. Those types of rules are arbitrary preferences, and change with the times.

[Willow n Pa]

I think its shouldn't b against the law to show your breasts but then it shouldnt b the law either. its should be up to the girl whether r how much she wantta show them.
r n my cast it probably should b against the law to show them lol
Willow

[dude123188]

here is the direct link New York Headshot Photographer - Wedding, Fashion Photography , sorry.

[GeekyJenn]

I was looking at some of those photos... honestly looking at those women was far less disturbing than looking at some men that go around without shirts on! One picture had a "reconstructed" breast. I don't know if anyone noticed that one I'm not being judgemental but it is rare to see a woman after having that type of surgery (looked like a tumor was removed, not really a "prettying" of her breast) to be bold enough to go without a shirt on...

I thought the pictures were fairly tasteful

[kettlekorn]

I hadn't even thought about this before, but it does make sense to have it legalized and so it should. there is no logical reason why it is illegal.

just as it would be weird to see a woman walking topless in a supermarket, it would be weird to see a guy walking topless in a supermarket. and the same for any other place that would be awkward to see a woman topless.

as a female myself, if the law was passed, I wouldn't go topless, but the choice should be there.

[sxyNYCcpl]

Originally Posted by scarbowl

Women's breasts are sexual - just as are the genitals. So a woman has two "sets" of sexual characteristics while a man has one. So she has to cover an extra set. So what?

I couldn't disagree more. Breasts are not inherently sexual, it is our collective response to them that makes them so. However, even if I concede that point, laws against women being topless are blatantly unconstitutional unless the same law applies to men.

From the US Constitution, Amendment XIV:

"No state shall... deny to any person within it's jurisdiction equal protection of the laws."

What does that mean? It means you can't, say, have laws that apply to blacks but not whites. It also means you can't have laws that apply to women and not men, which is why in 1992 the Court of Appeals overturned New York's law against the exposure of woman's breasts. The case was NY v. Santorelli, if you're interested the decision can be read here.

It's perfectly legal for a woman in New York to be topless anywhere it's legal for a man to be. The only reason the decision doesn't apply nationwide is because the Supremes have never ruled on it. If they did, it would be a no-brainer.

My personal opinion is that the court got it right, both for legal reasons, as well as the principal... there should be no differentiation. I also am in favor of boobies on the loose as much as possible.

[Magicmarker]

I do not think that this should even be considered. The government is allowed to make laws against this to prevent young children from being exposed to sexual themes early on in their life. However, the kid inside of us all would definately love for this to be legal, but once you think it through, it is not a good idea. Ever.

[Dan And Jennifer]

Hi Magicmarker, thanks for sharing your thoughts. The real question behind the points you made however remains "Why?".

This is a very, very scary statement:

I do not think that this should even be considered.

That's how an millions of people died when the Nazis took over Germany, that's the reason behind witch burnings and other incredible lapses of humanity and judgment in our history as a society and civilization.That's how and why racism and bigotry still exist in our society.

The reason for all these incredible things is simple: People not thinking. People just following what someone else says. People oppressing others and their freedoms because "that's how it has always been". That's how these things happen.

Always, always, always think for yourself - it's amazing and deeply troubling to realize how many of our thoughts and opinions are prechewed biased perspectives held by previous generations. But thankfully the younger generation growing up today is asking "why" instead of accepting biases.

That's our challenge to everyone: THINK for yourself, always question everything!

And when you find yourself saying "because that's how it is" or "because it's wrong" or "because it's right" - that's a great hint that you're just following someone else's prechewed thoughts and biases.

As we like to say, just because we're all doing it today, doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. Look throughout history for countless examples of this, and take it as a challenge to ask yourself "Why" at every step.. the answers will be illuminating.

[SamIAm]

I think most of you guys are right...down at the basic principle of it, it's only reasonable and fair to allow both genders to choose whether to expose any part of their body that is not a sexual organ.

However, I also agree with some of you that the widespread panic if we tried to do this all at once would be disastrous.

I think this probably WILL happen, but in its own time. It's got to go slowly.

Another interesting thing I heard recently is that boobs were made to bounce (i.e. be free) and that it's actually healthier and helps prevent things like breast cancer to give them room to do so. Just a thought in support of this idea.

I still say, though, that it's extremely important to present this idea to the general public gently, or it will be met with great protestation and discomfort.