Do women have the right to expose their chests?

[Ascended Rome]

I get and support this whole sexual liberation thing, but if you don't think that something being distinctly involved in sex is grounds for it not to be showed off in public, then why are we even having this discussion? Clearly you're not going to change your mind on any of this.

Lips are directly involved in pretty much all the sex I've ever had.

They're also used for breathing and speaking. Breasts are used for sex or lactating. Unless you're a parent, the only function a breast serves is sexual.

[Sun Wukong]

Not even remotely.

The sexual sensitivity of female breasts and nipples varies considerably between women. For many women, they are either:
A) Not significantly erogenous, or
B) Too sensitive to be interacted with directly.

Whereas a woman's thighs are always erogenous. To an enormous extent. Should you ever succeed at sleeping with a woman you'll see what I mean.

1. I don't care for you acting like a dick in this conversation, and I don't even understand what you're hoping to contribute by being that way.

2. Yes, they're more sensitive than the breasts. I know that. I wasn't born yesterday. That doesn't mean that they're closely involved in sex. There are erogenous locations all over the body, this has almost no relevance to the kind or number of sexual acts relating to those locations. It's a sensitive spot, and it elicits a response. What, is a back massage now a sexual act too?

Well it is when I do it.

Anyway, I can't see how you can say they're not "closely involved" in sex given that they are quite literally close and involved in most forms of coitus. And should be involved at least to the extent that breasts are in foreplay.

[Sun Wukong]

Lips are directly involved in pretty much all the sex I've ever had.

They're also used for breathing and speaking. Breasts are used for sex or lactating. Unless you're a parent, the only function a breast serves is sexual.

You don't need your lips to be visible for either of those. What's your point?

[Othelos]

but does that meant that they should be banned from being seen in public?

I get and support this whole sexual liberation thing, but if you don't think that something being distinctly involved in sex is grounds for it not to be showed off in public, then why are we even having this discussion? Clearly you're not going to change your mind on any of this.

I guess everyone should wear burqas then? because the whole body is and can be involved in sex. Including the face.

[Ascended Rome]

1. I don't care for you acting like a dick in this conversation, and I don't even understand what you're hoping to contribute by being that way.

2. Yes, they're more sensitive than the breasts. I know that. I wasn't born yesterday. That doesn't mean that they're closely involved in sex. There are erogenous locations all over the body, this has almost no relevance to the kind or number of sexual acts relating to those locations. It's a sensitive spot, and it elicits a response. What, is a back massage now a sexual act too?

Well it is when I do it.

Anyway, I can't see how you can say they're not "closely involved" in sex given that they are quite literally close and involved in most forms of coitus. And should be involved at least to the extent that breasts are in foreplay.

Hands are also close and involved in most forms of coitus. This doesn't make them sexual organs or sex-related for obvious reasons. With the exclusion of massaging them, there is almost nothing that you can do with thighs during sex.

I don't understand why this is hard for you to understand. It's not an extreme position or anything. Or are you just desperately trying to sabotage my argument because you feel like it?

[Ascended Rome]

I get and support this whole sexual liberation thing, but if you don't think that something being distinctly involved in sex is grounds for it not to be showed off in public, then why are we even having this discussion? Clearly you're not going to change your mind on any of this.

I guess everyone should wear burqas then? because the whole body is and can be involved in sex. Including the face.

Are you just trying to piss me off by being intentionally stupid?

[Othelos]

I guess everyone should wear burqas then? because the whole body is and can be involved in sex. Including the face.

Are you just trying to piss me off by being intentionally stupid?

relax.

I don't think women should be forced to cover up if they don't want to be. In fact, nudity for all people should be optional. Obviously certain social contexts would be weird for people to be naked in, but if they want to be ostracized, that's their own choice.

[Ascended Rome]

Are you just trying to piss me off by being intentionally stupid?

relax.

I don't think women should be forced to cover up if they don't want to be. In fact, nudity for all people should be optional. Obviously certain social contexts would be weird for people to be naked in, but if they want to be ostracized, that's their own choice.

I am relaxed. You turned "I think people shouldn't be walking around with their sexual organs hanging out" into "I think women should wear burqas". Are you surprised that I might be a little taken aback?

Again, if you think that there's absolutely no grounds for keeping things out of the public sphere due to their sexual nature, why are you in this discussion? There is literally nothing I could say to you to change your mind, and visa-versa. Are you enticed by the idea of having a fight between two brick walls?

[Othelos]

relax.

I don't think women should be forced to cover up if they don't want to be. In fact, nudity for all people should be optional. Obviously certain social contexts would be weird for people to be naked in, but if they want to be ostracized, that's their own choice.

I am relaxed. You turned "I think people shouldn't be walking around with their sexual organs hanging out" into "I think women should wear burqas". Are you surprised that I might be a little taken aback?

Again, if you think that there's absolutely no grounds for keeping things out of the public sphere due to their sexual nature, why are you in this discussion? There is literally nothing I could say to you to change your mind, and visa-versa. Are you enticed by the idea of having a fight between two brick walls?

why are you posting in a debate forum if your opinion is a "brick wall"?

[Ascended Rome]

I am relaxed. You turned "I think people shouldn't be walking around with their sexual organs hanging out" into "I think women should wear burqas". Are you surprised that I might be a little taken aback?

Again, if you think that there's absolutely no grounds for keeping things out of the public sphere due to their sexual nature, why are you in this discussion? There is literally nothing I could say to you to change your mind, and visa-versa. Are you enticed by the idea of having a fight between two brick walls?

why are you posting in a debate forum if your opinion is a "brick wall"?

I'd ask you the same thing

[Othelos]

why are you posting in a debate forum if your opinion is a "brick wall"?

I'd ask you the same thing

don't project

[Ascended Rome]

I'd ask you the same thing

don't project

Well, because sometimes I run into people who make me think "Hmm, they have a point.". Most of the time, I run into people who get mad or just have such completely ridiculous or alien philosophies (*cough* Chessmistress *cough*) that I can get a kick out of it or spin it to my advantage by using their ridiculousness to make people understand why I think the way I do.

[Ifreann]

Even where it isn't actually a crime for women to go topless?

Yes

That's why I said it's a crime.

Public indecency is a crime even when it isn't a crime and the law doesn't prohibit it?

[Vecherd]

Yeah of course they have "the right to". Just like they have the right to expose their fingers, or men have the right to expose their jaws. I can't really see any problems with it aside from puritanism and sexism, which I would call problems anyway.

in an anarcho-capitalist society communities will be able to set their own laws thus being able to curtail rights like penile flashing namaste verched-san

Okay? I never promoted going into peoples houses or gardens and streaking.

[BK117B2]

relax.

I don't think women should be forced to cover up if they don't want to be. In fact, nudity for all people should be optional. Obviously certain social contexts would be weird for people to be naked in, but if they want to be ostracized, that's their own choice.

I am relaxed. You turned "I think people shouldn't be walking around with their sexual organs hanging out" into "I think women should wear burqas". Are you surprised that I might be a little taken aback?

Again, if you think that there's absolutely no grounds for keeping things out of the public sphere due to their sexual nature, why are you in this discussion? There is literally nothing I could say to you to change your mind, and visa-versa. Are you enticed by the idea of having a fight between two brick walls?

But your stated position amounted to sexual organ = part of human body, even if existing primarily for an entirely different purpose, which is often involved in sex

The logical conclusion of this is that things such as hands and mouths would thus qualify as 'sexual organs'

[Dyakovo]

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?

Cover your beard, Iffy. You're getting me all hot and bothered...

[Ifreann]

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

Cover your beard, Iffy. You're getting me all hot and bothered...

I'd wear a burkha, but apparently that would mean that Muslim men were enslaving me.

[Dyakovo]

Even where it isn't actually a crime for women to go topless?

Yes

That's why I said it's a crime.

Except it, by definition, is not a crime to do it in locales where it has not been criminalized.

[Dyakovo]

How so what?

You shouldn't be going around without proper attire in public. It's immoral and disruptive to the good public order and discipline. If you want to do it in your house then by all means go ahead, but there must be order within the public life.

It is neither immoral nor disruptive to public order.

[Dyakovo]

Cover your beard, Iffy. You're getting me all hot and bothered...

I'd wear a burkha, but apparently that would mean that Muslim men were enslaving me.

And?

[Ifreann]

I'd wear a burkha, but apparently that would mean that Muslim men were enslaving me.

And?

And I just bought a 3 day ticket to a craft beer and cider festival. Being enslaved by Muslims won't work for me.

[Dyakovo]

And?

And I just bought a 3 day ticket to a craft beer and cider festival. Being enslaved by Muslims won't work for me.

Ah... Good point.

[The Black Forrest]

Cover your beard, Iffy. You're getting me all hot and bothered...

I'd wear a burkha, but apparently that would mean that Muslim men were enslaving me.

Wouldn't you be punished for not have a male escort?

[Ifreann]

I'd wear a burkha, but apparently that would mean that Muslim men were enslaving me.

Wouldn't you be punished for not have a male escort?

I'm sure a male escort could be arranged.

[Sam Hyde]

And?

And I just bought a 3 day ticket to a craft beer and cider festival. Being enslaved by Muslims won't work for me.

It didn't work for the Greeks either.