Do women have the right to expose their chests?

[Pandeeria]

Just because there are more serious issues in less developed nations does not negate the fact that this is still a social issue that needs to be discussed and a solution made.

Well no it isn't really worthy of a discussion it should just be legalized so we can get over it.

While I agree, others would disagree hence it is an issue.

[Esternial]

You can make anything trivial if you compare it a genocide in the Middle-East, but that's not how it works.

Don't even need a genocide in the Middle East. Unemployment, poor demographic growth, income inequality, inadequate military spending... Take your pick - all real, serious issues that actually matter.

I certainly feel that people who are concerned about something as trivial as it being contrary to custom to bare titties in public don't really have any more pressing concerns.

In other words, I fail to see how women being allowed or not allowed to expose themselves in public in any way actually improves their own lives or those around them, asides from being formally allowed to make a trivial choice.

Yes because people are only capable of caring about one thing at a time.

Because wanting all those things you mentioned improved upon AND wanting women to have more equality - including something as trivial as the freedom of going topless or not - is somehow one bridge too far for mankind's mental faculties to properly process.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

First World problems...

I think things are fine just the way they are. There are plenty of more important problems even in the Western world than it not being the custom for women to expose their tits in public.

Am I the only one who's noticed a general trend of people from the more prosperous societies without any truly important problems making up their own trivial and ludicrous issues, blowing up the proverbial fly into an elephant, just so that they could waste their time solving them with even more trivial and ludicrous solutions?

Just because there are more serious issues in less developed nations does not negate the fact that this is still a social issue that needs to be discussed and a solution made.

And how exactly is it such an important and crucial social issue to require a formal solution? Even in the prosperous Western societies, there are far more important social issues than that.

Suppose going topless was legalized. Nothing would change - asides from a few radical feminists who would go topless just to spite the "patriarchal establishment", most women would still go clothed out of habit, because that has been the long-standing custom of their society, while the authorities would have simply wasted a significant amount of time and resources to formally legalize a practice only desired by a small minority of disgruntled radicals. Society as whole would gain utterly nothing from it.

Putting useless shit like that into law costs time and money that would much better be spent elsewhere, so I fail to see the point in fixing what isn't broken.

[Ifreann]

If someone, somewhere, saying "I don't want my kids to see that!" is reason enough to require everyone to cover their chests, then it is reason enough to require everyone to cover their legs. I don't want my kids seeing people's bare legs, so there ought to be a law, yes?

It's not about requiring someone to cover...

Yes it is. Because we are talking about laws, and those aren't really optional guidelines.

I have the opinion that public decency laws should apply to all genders. Nothing that a singlet and a pair of shorts covers should be shown in public areas (shops, malls, cinemas, parks).

[Deuxtete]

Just because there are more serious issues in less developed nations does not negate the fact that this is still a social issue that needs to be discussed and a solution made.

And how exactly is it such an important and crucial social issue to require a formal solution? Even in the prosperous Western societies, there are far more important social issues than that.

Suppose going topless was legalized. Nothing would change - asides from a few radical feminists who would go topless just to spite the "patriarchal establishment", most women would still go clothed out of habit, because that has been the long-standing custom of their society, while the authorities would have simply wasted a significant amount of time and resources to formally legalize a practice only desired by a small minority of disgruntled radicals. Society as whole would gain utterly nothing from it.

Putting useless shit like that into law costs time and money that would much better be spent elsewhere, so I fail to see the point in fixing what isn't broken.

Equality under the law. Even for radical feminists.
As the law stands now, its not equal.
Thus it must be changed.

[Pandeeria]

Just because there are more serious issues in less developed nations does not negate the fact that this is still a social issue that needs to be discussed and a solution made.

And how exactly is it such an important and crucial social issue to require a formal solution? Even in the prosperous Western societies, there are far more important social issues than that.

Suppose going topless was legalized. Nothing would change - asides from a few radical feminists who would go topless just to spite the "patriarchal establishment", most women would still go clothed out of habit, because that has been the long-standing custom of their society, while the authorities would have simply wasted a significant amount of time and resources to formally legalize a practice only desired by a small minority of disgruntled radicals. Society as whole would gain utterly nothing from it.

Putting useless shit like that into law costs time and money that would much better be spent elsewhere, so I fail to see the point in fixing what isn't broken.

I don't know about you, but I see inequality as something that is quite bad. It is broken.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

And how exactly is it such an important and crucial social issue to require a formal solution? Even in the prosperous Western societies, there are far more important social issues than that.

Suppose going topless was legalized. Nothing would change - asides from a few radical feminists who would go topless just to spite the "patriarchal establishment", most women would still go clothed out of habit, because that has been the long-standing custom of their society, while the authorities would have simply wasted a significant amount of time and resources to formally legalize a practice only desired by a small minority of disgruntled radicals. Society as whole would gain utterly nothing from it.

Putting useless shit like that into law costs time and money that would much better be spent elsewhere, so I fail to see the point in fixing what isn't broken.

Equality under the law. Even for radical feminists.
As the law stands now, its not equal.
Thus it must be changed.

It's not like I mind witnessing an extra pair of bare titties every now and then. It's a matter of practicality. SJWs often go out of their way in the name of equality with such trivialities, while there are many more important issues that actually have a measurable effect on the quality of life of many people.

Formally legalizing toplesness contributes nothing to the quality of life of womenfolk, most of whom would not use their newfound legal privilege out of habit anyway. In the meantime, there are tens of thousands of single mothers struggling to raise their offspring because of income inequality between men and women. There are tens of thousands of irresponsible fathers failing to pay child support to women raising their children in solitude. There are too few incentives encouraging couples to stay together and provide wholesome families to the new generation. There government support to the institution of family is grossly inadequate, given the general demographic situation in the Western world.

It is these things, and not some imaginary injustices made up by feminazis in attempt to justify their continued existence, that actually need attention from society and a formal resolution. These things, and not the misguided attempts of enforcing misinterpreted forms of "equality", actually contribute to the cause of equality and have a real effect on people's lives. Hence, I think it's the things that really matter that should be given social and government attention.

[BK117B2]

Just because there are more serious issues in less developed nations does not negate the fact that this is still a social issue that needs to be discussed and a solution made.

And how exactly is it such an important and crucial social issue to require a formal solution? Even in the prosperous Western societies, there are far more important social issues than that.

Suppose going topless was legalized. Nothing would change - asides from a few radical feminists who would go topless just to spite the "patriarchal establishment", most women would still go clothed out of habit, because that has been the long-standing custom of their society, while the authorities would have simply wasted a significant amount of time and resources to formally legalize a practice only desired by a small minority of disgruntled radicals. Society as whole would gain utterly nothing from it.

Putting useless shit like that into law costs time and money that would much better be spent elsewhere, so I fail to see the point in fixing what isn't broken.

Actually, it would take very little time and resources amounting merely to a negligible amount of electricity, toner, and paper to eliminate the laws against toplessness.

Obviously there IS something broken when there is a sexist law in place preventing people from being able to do what they desire and have every right to do

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Personally I don't think using violence to enforce any degree of dress is acceptable at all.

[The Black Forrest]

Personally I don't think using violence to enforce any degree of dress is acceptable at all.

Oh I can think of a couple beaches with rather large Russians running around in speedos to suggest otherwise.

[United States of White America]

No I am serious.

Considering your signature and other posts you've made, I'm inclined to believe that's false. But eh, whatever you say.

I am serious.

[Othelos]

Considering your signature and other posts you've made, I'm inclined to believe that's false. But eh, whatever you say.

I am serious.

how do you expect anyone to take you seriously

[New Ogunquit]

I am serious.

how do you expect anyone to take you seriously

Radicals usually don't think they're radicals?

[New Grestin]

I am serious.

how do you expect anyone to take you seriously

I don't think he does.

It's like an inside joke and none of us are in on it except him.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

And how exactly is it such an important and crucial social issue to require a formal solution? Even in the prosperous Western societies, there are far more important social issues than that.

Suppose going topless was legalized. Nothing would change - asides from a few radical feminists who would go topless just to spite the "patriarchal establishment", most women would still go clothed out of habit, because that has been the long-standing custom of their society, while the authorities would have simply wasted a significant amount of time and resources to formally legalize a practice only desired by a small minority of disgruntled radicals. Society as whole would gain utterly nothing from it.

Putting useless shit like that into law costs time and money that would much better be spent elsewhere, so I fail to see the point in fixing what isn't broken.

Actually, it would take very little time and resources amounting merely to a negligible amount of electricity, toner, and paper to eliminate the laws against toplessness.

Obviously there IS something broken when there is a sexist law in place preventing people from being able to do what they desire and have every right to do

If it really was such a big deal, I'm sure there would be thousands of oppressed women flocking in the streets in mass protests, demanding the right to flaunt their bosoms openly. But there aren't. There are just a handful of crazed feminazis running out of ideas of how else to present themselves as oppressed and deserving of sympathy, and a bunch of mostly-teenaged online SJWs who have taken their bait defending the idea. Which shows that most womenfolk are completely fine with this so-called "sexist" and "oppressive" law and have no intention of baring their breasts even if it was officially allowed because of a long-standing social convention that the said law reflects.

And it takes much more than electricity, ink and paper to amend any law. It takes a thorough examination by legal experts (all of whom must be paid for the job) to determine what other laws this amendment would affect, to assess what legal precedent this amendment could set, to determine whether and how the change would affect the legal rights of other groups, directly or indirectly. It's something that is much easier said than done. It would also take quite a bit of money and time to ensure the new law is distributed throughout the nation's institutions.

That and the fact that the majority of people including women see nothing wrong with the current law makes changing it absolutely unnecessary. The legal system is there to regulate and protect society as whole, not to appease the whims of a tiny minority of radicals and social justice warriors.

[BK117B2]

Actually, it would take very little time and resources amounting merely to a negligible amount of electricity, toner, and paper to eliminate the laws against toplessness.

Obviously there IS something broken when there is a sexist law in place preventing people from being able to do what they desire and have every right to do

If it really was such a big deal, I'm sure there would be thousands of oppressed women flocking in the streets in mass protests, demanding the right to flaunt their bosoms openly. But there aren't. There are just a handful of crazed feminazis running out of ideas of how else to present themselves as oppressed and deserving of sympathy, and a bunch of mostly-teenaged online SJWs who have taken their bait defending the idea. Which shows that most womenfolk are completely fine with this so-called "sexist" and "oppressive" law and have no intention of baring their breasts even if it was officially allowed because of a long-standing social convention that the said law reflects.

And it takes much more than electricity, ink and paper to amend any law. It takes a thorough examination by legal experts (all of whom must be paid for the job) to determine what other laws this amendment would affect, to assess what legal precedent this amendment could set, to determine whether and how the change would affect the legal rights of other groups, directly or indirectly. It's something that is much easier said than done. It would also take quite a bit of money and time to ensure the new law is distributed throughout the nation's institutions.

That and the fact that the majority of people including women see nothing wrong with the current law makes changing it absolutely unnecessary. The legal system is there to regulate and protect society as whole, not to appease the whims of a tiny minority of radicals and social justice warriors.

So rather than address an undeniable problem, you instead choose to insult the victims.

You are also obviously incorrect about the effort needed to repeal the laws. Repealing these unjust laws CAN be done quickly with almost no expenditure. That you desire to look at other things is just that: your desire, not something actually necessary. The primary reason for what you describe is to determine IF something should be done. Why waste money determining IF the right thing should be done rather than just doing it?

[Deuxtete]

Equality under the law. Even for radical feminists.
As the law stands now, its not equal.
Thus it must be changed.

It's not like I mind witnessing an extra pair of bare titties every now and then. It's a matter of practicality. SJWs often go out of their way in the name of equality with such trivialities, while there are many more important issues that actually have a measurable effect on the quality of life of many people.

Formally legalizing toplesness contributes nothing to the quality of life of womenfolk, most of whom would not use their newfound legal privilege out of habit anyway. In the meantime, there are tens of thousands of single mothers struggling to raise their offspring because of income inequality between men and women. There are tens of thousands of irresponsible fathers failing to pay child support to women raising their children in solitude. There are too few incentives encouraging couples to stay together and provide wholesome families to the new generation. There government support to the institution of family is grossly inadequate, given the general demographic situation in the Western world.

It is these things, and not some imaginary injustices made up by feminazis in attempt to justify their continued existence, that actually need attention from society and a formal resolution. These things, and not the misguided attempts of enforcing misinterpreted forms of "equality", actually contribute to the cause of equality and have a real effect on people's lives. Hence, I think it's the things that really matter that should be given social and government attention.

It's not about "equality" as some bizarre abstract.
Women are specifically prohibited from a behavior men are not prohibited from under criminal penalty. Breats of a woman are not genitals, barring extra fat and few more ducts to facilitate breast feeding they are no different than a man's breast.
That's discrimination by the legal system against women, not theoretically, not in the abstract, but literally by the letter of the law.

It can be fixed two ways, either make it criminal for men to go topless, or make it legal for women to go topless.

Titties? Pathetic.

Also that SJW bullshit is just a fucking imaginary slight tossed around by children on the internet.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

It's not like I mind witnessing an extra pair of bare titties every now and then. It's a matter of practicality. SJWs often go out of their way in the name of equality with such trivialities, while there are many more important issues that actually have a measurable effect on the quality of life of many people.

Formally legalizing toplesness contributes nothing to the quality of life of womenfolk, most of whom would not use their newfound legal privilege out of habit anyway. In the meantime, there are tens of thousands of single mothers struggling to raise their offspring because of income inequality between men and women. There are tens of thousands of irresponsible fathers failing to pay child support to women raising their children in solitude. There are too few incentives encouraging couples to stay together and provide wholesome families to the new generation. There government support to the institution of family is grossly inadequate, given the general demographic situation in the Western world.

It is these things, and not some imaginary injustices made up by feminazis in attempt to justify their continued existence, that actually need attention from society and a formal resolution. These things, and not the misguided attempts of enforcing misinterpreted forms of "equality", actually contribute to the cause of equality and have a real effect on people's lives. Hence, I think it's the things that really matter that should be given social and government attention.

It's not about "equality" as some bizarre abstract.
Women are specifically prohibited from a behavior men are not prohibited from under criminal penalty. Breats of a woman are not genitals, barring extra fat and few more ducts to facilitate breast feeding they are no different than a man's breast.
That's discrimination by the legal system against women, not theoretically, not in the abstract, but literally by the letter of the law.

It can be fixed two ways, either make it criminal for men to go topless, or make it legal for women to go topless.

Titties? Pathetic.

Also that SJW bullshit is just a fucking imaginary slight tossed around by children on the internet.

Technically, male breasts and female breasts are the exact same. Men can both have fattier, female-like breasts and produce milk. only difference is hormones.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

It's not like I mind witnessing an extra pair of bare titties every now and then. It's a matter of practicality. SJWs often go out of their way in the name of equality with such trivialities, while there are many more important issues that actually have a measurable effect on the quality of life of many people.

Formally legalizing toplesness contributes nothing to the quality of life of womenfolk, most of whom would not use their newfound legal privilege out of habit anyway. In the meantime, there are tens of thousands of single mothers struggling to raise their offspring because of income inequality between men and women. There are tens of thousands of irresponsible fathers failing to pay child support to women raising their children in solitude. There are too few incentives encouraging couples to stay together and provide wholesome families to the new generation. There government support to the institution of family is grossly inadequate, given the general demographic situation in the Western world.

It is these things, and not some imaginary injustices made up by feminazis in attempt to justify their continued existence, that actually need attention from society and a formal resolution. These things, and not the misguided attempts of enforcing misinterpreted forms of "equality", actually contribute to the cause of equality and have a real effect on people's lives. Hence, I think it's the things that really matter that should be given social and government attention.

It's not about "equality" as some bizarre abstract.
Women are specifically prohibited from a behavior men are not prohibited from under criminal penalty. Breats of a woman are not genitals, barring extra fat and few more ducts to facilitate breast feeding they are no different than a man's breast.
That's discrimination by the legal system against women, not theoretically, not in the abstract, but literally by the letter of the law.

It can be fixed two ways, either make it criminal for men to go topless, or make it legal for women to go topless.

Titties? Pathetic.

Also that SJW bullshit is just a fucking imaginary slight tossed around by children on the internet.

I don't suppose you are familiar with the concept of Overton window.

It's basically a "window" of what people are willing to accept from policy-makers, based on the currently existing social norms, conventions and legal framework. Politicians who make laws have to take that into consideration before making any policy or law.

Now, personally these politicians might not care in the least whether they adopt a law allowing people to go stark naked, or a law requiring people to wear fully-enclosed hazmat suits under criminal penalty. They are simply doing whatever the hell it takes to keep their ratings high and themselves in power. However, in order to do that, they must consider first what the majority of their subjects is willing to accept before making a law or policy. Laws that straddle the boundary of acceptable breed resentment, resentment breeds unrest and disorder, and disorder is bad for business.

For the time being, the prevalent social norms oppose female toplesness, which is reflected into existing laws, formed in accord with the standards of public decency inherited from an earlier time. There exists a certain minority of malcontents who regard these norms and laws to be discriminatory and outdated. However, the vast majority still either opposes the issue outright, or at least doesn't see anything wrong with the existing standards. It is this opinion of the majority that defines the window of acceptability within which the authorities can effect any changes without social repercussions.

Now, the authorities can certainly ignore the bounds of the Overton window and effect a law in order to appease a disgruntled minority of radicals, the direct cost of changing a minor law being sufficiently small as you pointed out. However, that would breed resentment in a much larger segment of the population, in this case, the more conservative populace and those who feel there are more important issues that need government attention. A discontent population is a fertile ground for seeds of radicalism and extremism to take root in. There could emerge extremists from all sides - religious conservatives who would sow further discontent, decrying the decline of moral standards and condemning the government for promoting indecent behaviour and moral decadence, angry taxpayers upset about politicians paid by their money legislating titty exposure while society is struggling with unemployment, high taxation, rising crime rates and whatnot, and also extremist ultra-liberals and feminists who'd claim that legalizing toplesness isn't enough and would demand even more radical changes, having a legal precedent for their claims. The potential for trouble brought about by such seemingly tiny and harmless change of law, and the expenses of containing all this potential fuss are simply too high to be worth the bother.

In order to change a law without upsetting social stability, the authorities must hence instead work on changing social perceptions of what is right and proper, change the social norms themselves rather than merely effect a new law. Joseph Overton described the gradual stages of this process along with his window theory, and effecting a new social norm by law is merely the last stage in a chain of multiple others, implemented when social standards of the majority have already changed.

---

What you and other like-minded folks are suggesting here is ham-handedly changing a law on a whim while ignoring the window of social acceptability. Politicians, whose livelihoods depend on the degree public is willing to tolerate their legislation, can ill-afford to effect a change simply because some people say an existing law is "wrong" or "unjust".

Basically, it's just not how social engineering works, so don't be surprised and disappointed about politicians not perceiving this issue as something of a national importance or their inaction about it.

[Deuxtete]

It's not about "equality" as some bizarre abstract.
Women are specifically prohibited from a behavior men are not prohibited from under criminal penalty. Breats of a woman are not genitals, barring extra fat and few more ducts to facilitate breast feeding they are no different than a man's breast.
That's discrimination by the legal system against women, not theoretically, not in the abstract, but literally by the letter of the law.

It can be fixed two ways, either make it criminal for men to go topless, or make it legal for women to go topless.

Titties? Pathetic.

Also that SJW bullshit is just a fucking imaginary slight tossed around by children on the internet.

Technically, male breasts and female breasts are the exact same. Men can both have fattier, female-like breasts and produce milk. only difference is hormones.

I thought women had more ducts...regardless.
That just further reinforces the point.

[Deuxtete]

It's not about "equality" as some bizarre abstract.
Women are specifically prohibited from a behavior men are not prohibited from under criminal penalty. Breats of a woman are not genitals, barring extra fat and few more ducts to facilitate breast feeding they are no different than a man's breast.
That's discrimination by the legal system against women, not theoretically, not in the abstract, but literally by the letter of the law.

It can be fixed two ways, either make it criminal for men to go topless, or make it legal for women to go topless.

Titties? Pathetic.

Also that SJW bullshit is just a fucking imaginary slight tossed around by children on the internet.

I don't suppose you are familiar with the concept of Overton window.

It's basically a "window" of what people are willing to accept from policy-makers, based on the currently existing social norms, conventions and legal framework. Politicians who make laws have to take that into consideration before making any policy or law.

Now, personally these politicians might not care in the least whether they adopt a law allowing people to go stark naked, or a law requiring people to wear fully-enclosed hazmat suits under criminal penalty. They are simply doing whatever the hell it takes to keep their ratings high and themselves in power. However, in order to do that, they must consider first what the majority of their subjects is willing to accept before making a law or policy. Laws that straddle the boundary of acceptable breed resentment, resentment breeds unrest and disorder, and disorder is bad for business.

For the time being, the prevalent social norms oppose female toplesness, which is reflected into existing laws, formed in accord with the standards of public decency inherited from an earlier time. There exists a certain minority of malcontents who regard these norms and laws to be discriminatory and outdated. However, the vast majority still either opposes the issue outright, or at least doesn't see anything wrong with the existing standards. It is this opinion of the majority that defines the window of acceptability within which the authorities can effect any changes without social repercussions.

Now, the authorities can certainly ignore the bounds of the Overton window and effect a law in order to appease a disgruntled minority of radicals, the direct cost of changing a minor law being sufficiently small as you pointed out. However, that would breed resentment in a much larger segment of the population, in this case, the more conservative populace and those who feel there are more important issues that need government attention. A discontent population is a fertile ground for seeds of radicalism and extremism to take root in. There could emerge extremists from all sides - religious conservatives who would sow further discontent, decrying the decline of moral standards and condemning the government for promoting indecent behaviour and moral decadence, angry taxpayers upset about politicians paid by their money legislating titty exposure while society is struggling with unemployment, high taxation, rising crime rates and whatnot, and also extremist ultra-liberals and feminists who'd claim that legalizing toplesness isn't enough and would demand even more radical changes, having a legal precedent for their claims. The potential for trouble brought about by such seemingly tiny and harmless change of law, and the expenses of containing all this potential fuss are simply too high to be worth the bother.

In order to change a law without upsetting social stability, the authorities must hence instead work on changing social perceptions of what is right and proper, change the social norms themselves rather than merely effect a new law. Joseph Overton described the gradual stages of this process along with his window theory, and effecting a new social norm by law is merely the last stage in a chain of multiple others, implemented when social standards of the majority have already changed.

---

What you and other like-minded folks are suggesting here is ham-handedly changing a law on a whim while ignoring the window of social acceptability. Politicians, whose livelihoods depend on the degree public is willing to tolerate their legislation, can ill-afford to effect a change simply because some people say an existing law is "wrong" or "unjust".

Basically, it's just not how social engineering works, so don't be surprised and disappointed about politicians not perceiving this issue as something of a national importance or their inaction about it.

I was not familiar with "Overton window"
"Those like me" are middle aged conservative evangelical Christian parents. Who happen to believe in the rule of law, and the American principle of equality under the law. Any other position besides equal treatment under the law is anti-American, and should be rebuked, violently if need be.
Breasts are not going to destroy the moral fabric of our society. Additionally moral behavior only matters if it chosen, not imposed, so "those like me" advocate changing morality standards by changing minds, not criminalizing women should they do something that is perfectly acceptable for men to do.

Mob rules is not an excuse for unequal treatment under law.

Finally the idea this would "radicalize" people is patently stupid.

[Meryuma]

Breasts are sexual characteristics. Secondary sexual characteristics. Like beards.

They're also an erogenous zone. Like the collarbone, or the inner thigh.

[May Mays]

Breasts are sexual characteristics. Secondary sexual characteristics. Like beards.

They're also an erogenous zone. Like the collarbone, or the inner thigh.

Ears and lips and are much more sensitive erogenous zones.

[Ifreann]

Breasts are sexual characteristics. Secondary sexual characteristics. Like beards.

They're also an erogenous zone. Like the collarbone, or the inner thigh.

So why does no one ever tell me to cover my beard?

[The Emerald Legion]

I prefer the dwarven model of nudism. Namely no nudity ever. To the point where part of the courtship process involves asking polite questions with the goal of determining whether or not the person you're trying to court is actually the right gender. Because you can't tell otherwise.