Free the nipple:should women be able to go topless in public

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

It was against a Constitutional Amendment. Show me the Partial-Nudity Amendment.

That's not what you said. You said it's the governments place to uphold the social values of society, In '67 the majority was not in favour of interracial marriage.

But if you insist. Read the 14th. Article 1, specifically.

So? Get rid of toplessness for all unless it's on completely consensual, private ground. And the values of society and America should be centered around the US Constitution. The legalization of interracial marriage was in favor of society, toplessness is not.

[Fartsniffage]

That's not what you said. You said it's the governments place to uphold the social values of society, In '67 the majority was not in favour of interracial marriage.

But if you insist. Read the 14th. Article 1, specifically.

So? Get rid of toplessness for all unless it's on completely consensual, private ground. And the values of society and America should be centered around the US Constitution. The legalization of interracial marriage was in favor of society, toplessness is not.

Why isn't it? What harm does it do?

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

So? Get rid of toplessness for all unless it's on completely consensual, private ground. And the values of society and America should be centered around the US Constitution. The legalization of interracial marriage was in favor of society, toplessness is not.

Why isn't it? What harm does it do?

Here. Let me describe it to you in a picture.

[/img]

And here's something else; what harm is it doing with it being illegal?

[Fartsniffage]

Here. Let me describe it to you in a picture.

(Image)[/img]

Ah, so it's your position that the US is too immature to deal with seeing boobies. I've seen plenty of topless sunbathing around Europe, society seems to have managed not to implode into a mass orgy of sex and violence.

And here's something else; what harm is it doing with it being illegal?

It's an infringement on personal freedom without a compelling government interest.

[Terrarva]

I can't see the facepalm smilie. Sorry, folks.
On another note, I DO agree that everyone should be able to do whatever the fuck they want so long as it doesn't include harming anyone physically or psychologically. [insert obligatory rape-related arguments here]

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Here. Let me describe it to you in a picture.

(Image)[/img]

Ah, so it's your position that the US is too immature to deal with seeing boobies. I've seen plenty of topless sunbathing around Europe, society seems to have managed not to implode into a mass orgy of sex and violence.

Were they consensual and were they private? I would assume so.

And here's something else; what harm is it doing with it being illegal?

It's an infringement on personal freedom without a compelling government interest.

Government interest should be societal interest, in this case.

Why don't we legalize all nudity, then? What's the point in having clothes?

[Wisconsin9]

Ah, so it's your position that the US is too immature to deal with seeing boobies. I've seen plenty of topless sunbathing around Europe, society seems to have managed not to implode into a mass orgy of sex and violence.

Were they consensual and were they private? I would assume so.

It's an infringement on personal freedom without a compelling government interest.

Government interest should be societal interest, in this case.

Why don't we legalize all nudity, then? What's the point in having clothes?

That's a very good question. I mean, even if nudity is completely legalized (which, honestly, I can't see any particularly good reason not to do so) I intend to still wear clothes, because, y'know, sunburn, but if other people don't mind I don't see what grounds I have to stop them.

[Fartsniffage]

Were they consensual and were they private? I would assume so.

Consensual as in did the women chose to remove the clothing themselves? I would assume so since I've never noticed anybody forcing them to do so.

Public beaches.

Government interest should be societal interest, in this case.

Why don't we legalize all nudity, then? What's the point in having clothes?

Yet you've not managed to show what damage would be done by topless women. What is the compelling societal interest?

Hygiene.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Were they consensual and were they private? I would assume so.


Government interest should be societal interest, in this case.

Why don't we legalize all nudity, then? What's the point in having clothes?

That's a very good question. I mean, even if nudity is completely legalized (which, honestly, I can't see any particularly good reason not to do so) I intend to still wear clothes, because, y'know, sunburn, but if other people don't mind I don't see what grounds I have to stop them.

Perhaps under the grounds that the human body is absolutely disgusting and not very many people actually want to look at nude people? I think my right to decency should outweigh your right to choice in this case. Unless, like I've stated numerous times before, it's on consensual and private ground.

[Wisconsin9]

That's a very good question. I mean, even if nudity is completely legalized (which, honestly, I can't see any particularly good reason not to do so) I intend to still wear clothes, because, y'know, sunburn, but if other people don't mind I don't see what grounds I have to stop them.

Perhaps under the grounds that the human body is absolutely disgusting and not very many people actually want to look at nude people? I think my right to decency should outweigh your right to choice in this case. Unless, like I've stated numerous times before, it's on consensual and private ground.

Oh, no, I'm so sorry, I've just suggesting that we infringe upon your right to not be offended... wait, what? That's not actually a thing? WHY DOES NOBODY EVER TELL ME THESE THINGS!?

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Were they consensual and were they private? I would assume so.

Consensual as in did the women chose to remove the clothing themselves? I would assume so since I've never noticed anybody forcing them to do so.

Public beaches.

No, consensual as in everyone consented to seeing them. I hate being the "Protect the Kids!" guy, but really, the naked human is ugly.

Just another question, are there many children on European beaches? I wouldn't imagine people wanting to take their kids around bare-cheeked people.

Government interest should be societal interest, in this case.

Why don't we legalize all nudity, then? What's the point in having clothes?

Yet you've not managed to show what damage would be done by topless women. What is the compelling societal interest?

Hygiene.

What's compelling societal interest? The safety of eyes that might fall upon old, wrinkly, and diseased skin. It's awful to see someone topless and I think it's in better interest to keep our shirts on.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

- For some raisins I can't delete this post-

[Wisconsin9]

wait, what? That's not actually a thing? WHY DOES NOBODY EVER TELL ME THESE THINGS!?

Huh? What is this about? The private ground part?

No, pretty much all the bullshit about banning human skin because you think it's ugly.

[Fartsniffage]

No, consensual as in everyone consented to seeing them. I hate being the "Protect the Kids!" guy, but really, the naked human is ugly.

Then yes. Everyone is aware that it's a possibility if they go to the beach. They still go.

Just another question, are there many children on European beaches? I wouldn't imagine people wanting to take their kids around bare-cheeked people.

No, we put them in pens just up the shore while the adults go sunbathe and drink cocktails....

What do you think?

What's compelling societal interest? The safety of eyes that might fall upon old, wrinkly, and diseased skin. It's awful to see someone topless and I think it's in better interest to keep our shirts on.

Nah, that's a terrible reason. Just look away if it offends your pure vision.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Huh? What is this about? The private ground part?

No, pretty much all the bullshit about banning human skin because you think it's ugly.

Oh. Well. Yeah. It is BS but that's just my fucked up opinion. Opinion! *flies away and finally goes to get rest where I belong*

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

No, consensual as in everyone consented to seeing them. I hate being the "Protect the Kids!" guy, but really, the naked human is ugly.

Then yes. Everyone is aware that it's a possibility if they go to the beach. They still go.

Just another question, are there many children on European beaches? I wouldn't imagine people wanting to take their kids around bare-cheeked people.

No, we put them in pens just up the shore while the adults go sunbathe and drink cocktails....

What do you think?

What's compelling societal interest? The safety of eyes that might fall upon old, wrinkly, and diseased skin. It's awful to see someone topless and I think it's in better interest to keep our shirts on.

Nah, that's a terrible reason. Just look away if it offends your pure vision.

Same argument with abortion is applied here. Consent to going to the beach is not consent to seeing naked people. This is why you have to agree to being over 18 before going on any adult content over the net. Because however you should have the choice, I should also have the choice not to see that. Me not wanting to see my family/friends/neighbors going around town naked is an actual argument.

[Wisconsin9]

Then yes. Everyone is aware that it's a possibility if they go to the beach. They still go.



No, we put them in pens just up the shore while the adults go sunbathe and drink cocktails....

What do you think?



Nah, that's a terrible reason. Just look away if it offends your pure vision.

Same argument with abortion is applied here. Consent to going to the beach is not consent to seeing naked people. This is why you have to agree to being over 18 before going on any adult content over the net. Because however you should have the choice, I should also have the choice not to see that. Me not wanting to see my family/friends/neighbors going around town naked is an actual argument.

There's this revolutionary new thing called "slightly angling your head in a different direction" that you might want to try some time.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Same argument with abortion is applied here. Consent to going to the beach is not consent to seeing naked people. This is why you have to agree to being over 18 before going on any adult content over the net. Because however you should have the choice, I should also have the choice not to see that. Me not wanting to see my family/friends/neighbors going around town naked is an actual argument.

There's this revolutionary new thing called "slightly angling your head in a different direction" that you might want to try some time.

There's this revolutionary new thing called "private property and indecency in public places" that you might want to try some time.

[Wisconsin9]

There's this revolutionary new thing called "slightly angling your head in a different direction" that you might want to try some time.

There's this revolutionary new thing called "private property and indecency in public places" that you might want to try some time.

Just as soon as you provide a reason to other than, "Ew, gross!"

[Fartsniffage]

Then yes. Everyone is aware that it's a possibility if they go to the beach. They still go.



No, we put them in pens just up the shore while the adults go sunbathe and drink cocktails....

What do you think?



Nah, that's a terrible reason. Just look away if it offends your pure vision.

Same argument with abortion is applied here. Consent to going to the beach is not consent to seeing naked people. This is why you have to agree to being over 18 before going on any adult content over the net. Because however you should have the choice, I should also have the choice not to see that. Me not wanting to see my family/friends/neighbors going around town naked is an actual argument.

It's an argument, it's just a terrible one. You have no right not to be offended.

As for the over 18 thing, I'd invite you to look up the idea of the page 3 model. The Sun published that for decades and it was just an ordinary national newspaper, on the breakfast table in millions of British homes in full grabbing view of any child.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

There's this revolutionary new thing called "private property and indecency in public places" that you might want to try some time.

Just as soon as you provide a reason to other than, "Ew, gross!"

I did. Did you not read the thing you JUST disregarded?

Maybe you can provide something other than, "Because I want to?"

[Wisconsin9]

Just as soon as you provide a reason to other than, "Ew, gross!"

I did. Did you not read the thing you JUST disregarded?

Maybe you can provide something other than, "Because I want to?"

I personally don't want to. I just don't see any good reasons to keep it illegal.

And no, it making people feel icky doesn't count as a good reason.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

Same argument with abortion is applied here. Consent to going to the beach is not consent to seeing naked people. This is why you have to agree to being over 18 before going on any adult content over the net. Because however you should have the choice, I should also have the choice not to see that. Me not wanting to see my family/friends/neighbors going around town naked is an actual argument.

It's an argument, it's just a terrible one. You have no right not to be offended.

As for the over 18 thing, I'd invite you to look up the idea of the page 3 model. The Sun published that for decades and it was just an ordinary national newspaper, on the breakfast table in millions of British homes in full grabbing view of any child.

I kinda do have a right to be offended. Have a problem? Bring it up to anyone in a harassment case. "Just look the other way, asshole! Plug ya fuckin' ears!"

It was also controversial and discontinued. Not only that, they only used female beauty models. Real life isn't as pretty.

[Hjalmarr]

Yes because big titties.

I actually think they should, in a non-feminist way.

[Fartsniffage]

It's an argument, it's just a terrible one. You have no right not to be offended.

As for the over 18 thing, I'd invite you to look up the idea of the page 3 model. The Sun published that for decades and it was just an ordinary national newspaper, on the breakfast table in millions of British homes in full grabbing view of any child.

I kinda do have a right to be offended. Have a problem? Bring it up to anyone in a harassment case. "Just look the other way, asshole! Plug ya fuckin' ears!"

It was also controversial and discontinued. Not only that, they only used female beauty models. Real life isn't as pretty.

You do have the right to be offended. But that isn't what I said. I said that you don't have any right not to be offended.

So controversial that it only lasted 45 years. And it wasn't "think of the kiddies" that ended it, it was a changing perception on the role of women and the view that it encouraged the sexualisation of women. But I guess that's a bit nuanced for someone whose head might explode if they see an unexpected muff....