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

[PJ@1970]

Originally Posted by Dan And Jennifer

Hmmm... at first it may seem like a good idea to make laws based on what we personally would "like" to see and WHO we would PERSONALLY like to see go naked.

But that wouldn't really be a workable system, would it. This isn't a question of who we'd love to see naked. It's a question of legal discrimination between men and women, based on laws from far more primitive times.



To your point below of "this is not burka-land", I see where you're coming from. You're saying "hey, it's not that bad". and you're right, it's not a massive discrimination against women, only discriminatory in a way that's not terribly awful. Not sure I'm buying the difference though.

On standards of taste, that leaves us with an interesting quandary. Again, we're talking about making laws from preferences not to protect people from others, etc.

The analogy is flawed: a more correct one would be that if men can legally pee in the street, making it illegal for women to do so is discriminatory. THAT is the question - not whether we enjoy watching people pee in the street - but rather the discrimination of allowing men to do it and discriminating against women.

100 years ago it was considered "pornographic" for a woman to show her ankle. And 60 years ago women couldn't vote. This is a question of discrimination, not personal preference, not a beauty contest where only "?Jessica Biel?" can walk around naked... that comparison just clouds the issue.

Please check out the videos that started this thread, you'll see these points articulated in better detail.

fun site by the way - newbie here - saw the article in "Quick" - and I hope y'all did some legal ass-covering regarding the likeness of your "ask" logo to the Ask.com Search Engine - Better Web Search logo

but yes yes I understand the discrimination issue
but but - I contended earlier that I find it hard to imagine that a woman would ever get a ticket or citation for having some tasteful nudity at any place a guy displays tasteful nudity - I've seen it in NYC

and speaking of discrimination -
isn't "women and children first!" discrimination?

I think this women's discrimination thing is a little passe at this point - you won't hear any women complaining sexual discrimination when a man holds the door open for her but let's the door swing into the next guy - "hey that was discrimination against that man mr. discriminating door holder!"

any time a woman sees a man topless <appropriately> I welcome any woman, with open arms, to also be topless, with open arms, open hands, open eyes and open mouth

I mean, I see it a bit more like the african american thing of wearing the pants down to the thighs - ok super, it's a cultural rebellion thing, sure sure, but "a brother's gotta pull his pants up" - Pres.Obama


edit>>>>
and I didn't hyperlink the -ask dot com- link, it did that automatically - I'm not a spammer!!!

[rob]

To mention an idea I found in Asimov novels: Could it be the 'taboo' nature of women's breasts, the fact they are not seen, that causes them to be sex symbols?
So, surely, we're enhancing the 'problem' by censoring it, or increasing their sexual appeal?
As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference, except for the fact men's breasts can be viewed freely. Therefore, very little sex appeal.
To conclude, if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest. Name another reason against 'breast baring'. I can't really think of any others that make sense. (I'm treating 'snakebabe's' statement on the first page as a joke).

[PJ@1970]

Originally Posted by rob

To mention an idea I found in Asimov novels: Could it be the 'taboo' nature of women's breasts, the fact they are not seen, that causes them to be sex symbols?
So, surely, we're enhancing the 'problem' by censoring it, or increasing their sexual appeal?
As I mentioned previously, there isn't much difference, except for the fact men's breasts can be viewed freely. Therefore, very little sex appeal.
To conclude, if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest. Name another reason against 'breast baring'. I can't really think of any others that make sense. (I'm treating 'snakebabe's' statement on the first page as a joke).

>>'taboo' nature of women's breasts, the fact they are not seen, that causes them to be sex symbols?<<
I agree

>>So, surely, we're enhancing the 'problem' by censoring it, or increasing their if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest.sexual appeal?<<
yes yes

>>To conclude, if you're worried about the sexual connotations, then let them be viewed; people will lose interest.<<
yep yep - akin to a porn star who is past prime - the unknown provides mystery and appeal

the known, when known by everyone, (in the Biblical sense when referring to the porn hag, lol), becomes passe and no longer attractive

[Ed the Pastor]

Not to long ago I wrote a sereis of articles on my blog the subject of Nudity, Modesty and Culture from a Christan prespective (I am a pastor and a conservative one in many respects) On this issue though the problem is difficult Scripturally, not because I beleive the manuscripts of Scripture are inaccurate but becasue the Bible itself has little to say on the subject of whether or not a woman's breasts constitute nudity.

1. When Adam and Eve sin it says they both made aprons, it does not additoionally say that Eve made a bra. They covered their lower parts not their chests.
2. The few verses in the New Testament(1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3) say nothing about nudity in relationship to modesty -- instead the opposite is true. The issue seems to be in both cases that women were dressing oppulantly and showing off their wealth and thus making the poorer women look like lesser people.
3. If breasts are mentioned (even by Jesus) it is usually in the context of breastfeeding. Only by Solomon does their seem to be a sexual context to female breasts and that is positive. (Guys enjoy your wife's breasts, etc.)

When it comes to this subject involving the nudity of female breasts I have only to say that this is pure cultural defining of modesty. You will not find Bible on it.

Most of the arguments made here on this subject are right on.
1. Just because I don't want to see it does not mean that it can't be shown. (There was a large woman wearing a thong at my work the other day under a white pair of pants. Didn't really wnat to see that but can't say I have the right to say to her she should go home and change.)
2. The fact that their is a legal difference between a man's chest and female's chest is probably both sexual discrimination and unjust.
3. Much of this comes from religious culture of the past.

I agree but I also want to respect the rights of others who may own property and not want it in their backyard so to speak.
1. I don't have a problem with a business saying 'no shirt, no service' as long as it applies to both sexes -- its fair.
2. If certain areas are defined this way in society as long as it is all or nothing then its OK. If people want a beach that it topless OK, but if they don't then make guys wear a top too. What needs to be removed is the idea of one sex can and the other can't.
3. In the case of communities, let each one define their own standard. Let democracy rule as long as both sexes are affected equally.

IMHO.

[Dan And Jennifer]

Hi Ed! Welcome - and thank you for sharing your thoughts and insights on this.

Look forward to seeing more from you on the other topics here... I'm guessing you'll find some interesting conversations particularly in the "Censorship & Sexual Repression" topic area of the Forums.

Thanks!
Dan

[sxyNYCcpl]

Originally Posted by PJ@1970

not inherently sexual? then why do women wear garments that emphasize cleavage?

Perhaps I should have said not biologically sexual. They have nothing to do with reproduction, per se. And to the degree that we humans have culturally sexualized the female breast, it's at least partially BECAUSE we require them to be hidden. The whole allure of the unknown and all of that.

Originally Posted by PJ@1970

you're saying it's not fair because men can go topless whereas women can not? I would guess that most places a man would be topless a woman would be somewhat welcome to be also topless (except for public pools, drunk dudes at Packers football games when it's 20 degrees out... some exceptions..)
if you're addressing this as a constitutional issue then knock yourself out!

That is exactly what I am saying. Not only that, but the supreme court of the State of NY agrees with me, as they struck down laws requiring women to wear tops where men are not required to. Yes, it is legal in NY for a woman to be topless anywhere it is legal for a man, because it is unconstitutional to have laws that apply to women but not to men. The state chose not to pursue further appeals, but I wish they had as were this issue to ever make it's way to the Supreme Court, were they to rule in an intellectually honest way they would have to agree, and then poof, nationwide toplessness would be legal.

While I like the idea of bare boobies in public, that is not my primary motivator. I find it abhorrent that in 2009 we still have sexual discrimination on the books. I would like to think we were more evolved than that, alas I fear we are not.

[Dan And Jennifer]

Originally Posted by sxyNYCcpl

While I like the idea of bare boobies in public, that is not my primary motivator. I find it abhorrent that in 2009 we still have sexual discrimination on the books. I would like to think we were more evolved than that, alas I fear we are not.

And that folks was the crux of our issue with these laws... it's really that simple for us.

[sxyNYCcpl]

Originally Posted by Dan And Jennifer

And that folks was the crux of our issue with these laws... it's really that simple for us.

I recently had an extensive online debate against a religious/social uber-conservative about this topic. The idea of bare breasts in public was just more than she could handle emotionally, and she tried all kinds of ways to justify her position. Ultimately she declared that men and women were not being treated differently because both were required to cover up their sexual organs. I pointed out that breasts had no functional involvement in procreation but she just couldn't follow along.

I really, really enjoy tweaking people like this, but sometimes I feel like I'm politically homeless because on social issues I tend to side with the D's, on fiscal/defense I'm usually with the R's. But people who think their ideas of how human sexuality "should be" should be enforced by law on the rest of us are the ones that get my special ire. I really don't care if you want to be a bitter prude, but you can kiss my ass if you think I'm going to be one too just because you said so.

Sorry, got a little rantish there. I'll go steal a Valium from my neighbor.

[Parnika]

I wonder how people say it is obscene. If that's the case even men should be punished for showing of their breasts. The real problem with us is that we have set it up in our mind as obscene. So I would like to say that Women should not be discriminated and breast showing should not be seen as illegal.