NationStates

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:49 am**

Divitaen wrote:
Free Sahara wrote:Women can wear bras, if it's very, very hot or if it's a beach. It's ok for men to not wear a shirt, and it would just look like some silly transvestite thing, if a male wears a bra. However, as a male I feel uncomfortable to be shirtless, as it's indecent behaviour, but I would feel a lot more uncomfortable, if I were a female. So, I'd say it's fundamentally only ok for women to wear bras only(upper body) and shirtless for men at home and at beaches.

Muslims and Christians back in the good old days, cover their hair. There is a lot we can learn from them about dress code standards and modest behavior.

And the moral difference between a male and female chest is??

Well the female chest is definitely better for my morale.

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:54 am**

Yes and no. In some countries people have no problem with it. In others they'd be stoned or burned alive. It depends on the location of said chest baring. In America or Europe I think it would be fine and I've got no qualms with it. In certain African countries or remote South American villages it's the only option. In the Middle East a woman just signed her death warrant.

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:58 am**

Sun Wukong wrote:
Divitaen wrote:
And the moral difference between a male and female chest is??

Well the female chest is definitely better for my morale.

In which case it certainly doesn't make sense to let men go topless but shame braless women. That concept has always confused me.

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:00 am**

Don't classify them as gentalia, then start talking

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:00 am**

The state shouldn't have the right to stop people wearing (or not wearing) what they want. But the breasts are still seen as a sex symbol so don't be surprised to get people stareing.

Posted: **Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:42 am**

Irona wrote:The state shouldn't have the right to stop people wearing (or not wearing) what they want. But the breasts are still seen as a sex symbol so don't be surprised to get people stareing.

It's still never the fault of the woman who exposes her breasts. It's society's fault for sexualising a part of her body and leering at her in the first place.

Posted: **Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:15 pm**

Irona wrote:The state shouldn't have the right to stop people wearing (or not wearing) what they want. But the breasts are still seen as a sex symbol so don't be surprised to get people stareing.

I'm not going to not stare at an attractive woman because she's not topless.

Posted: **Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:37 pm**

Irona wrote:The state shouldn't have the right to stop people wearing (or not wearing) what they want. But the breasts are still seen as a sex symbol so don't be surprised to get people stareing.

Yes it should.
OSHA

Not to mention health issues related to hygiene.

A woman bare breasted in public however, is absolutely no different than a man.
Breasts are not genitals.

Posted: **Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:46 pm**

How many of these threads do we have to have?

Posted: **Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:49 pm**

Badassistanian wrote:How many of these threads do we have to have?

You know you didn't have to post on this thread, or any thread like this, right?

Urran wrote:Yes and no. In some countries people have no problem with it. In others they'd be stoned or burned alive. It depends on the location of said chest baring. In America or Europe I think it would be fine and I've got no qualms with it. In certain African countries or remote South American villages it's the only option. In the Middle East a woman just signed her death warrant.

Africa, the Middle East, and South America have bigger problems then should their women be able to go out topless.

Posted: **Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:57 pm**

Pandeeria wrote:
Badassistanian wrote:How many of these threads do we have to have?

You know you didn't have to post on this thread, or any thread like this, right?

But then how would he let us know how much he doesn't care?

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:40 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Meryuma wrote: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?

Exactly.

Ascended Rome wrote:The fact is that you can take away the social sexualization of body parts, but that doesn't change how the human body fundamentally works. There are certain shapes and curvatures in both men and women that are beneficial to child-rearing and, thanks to the miracle of Darwinistic Evolution, people tend to notice them. Now, this encompasses a whole hell of a lot of things. Muscular builds tend to be pleasing to the eye, as do many other sexual and non-sexual things.

Obviously we can't and shouldn't ban showing all of them, but the fact is that when we're discussing a part which is actively and widely-known to be involved in sexual intercourse, even tangentially, then you can't claim that we're just being overly conservative and make jokes about "banning showing ankle or thigh next". Neither ankles nor thighs are actively involved in sexual intercourse, while breasts are. No, they're not "sexual organs" in that they're not involved in the whole, basic, "Penicillin goes into Vijayanagar", but that doesn't mean that they aren't very closely involved in the sexual process.

I've done sexual things with 3 people. They were all the same gender as me, and 2 of them were also the same sex. I don't like beefy muscles or heaving bosoms. This is entirely based on your specific viewpoint as a heterosexual male who agrees with mainstream Western beauty standards.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:30 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
Meryuma wrote: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?

Your beard goes uncovered? You show that thing to children!?

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2015 10:44 pm**

Clothing should be outlawed.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:34 am**

Librica wrote:Clothing should be outlawed.

I could put this quote on Dumbest things said by a Republican and it would probably receive the most likes which is ironic cause you say your a socialist and your not stupid :rofl:

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:38 am**

i think so. are breasts so awful to cover up.. men dont cover their upper bodies. breastfeeding in public is acceptable also, so why do they have to cover them up again when its over.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:58 am**

I personally find it objectionable to expose too much skin publicly, but on the other hand, I don't see why people should be banned from doing so. On the other hand, I don't think it should be illegal to not serve those who aren't sufficiently dressed.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 5:14 am**

Librica wrote:Clothing should be outlawed.

Tell that to the Siberians.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2015 5:38 am**

Legal in NYC: http://mic.com/articles/42359/topless-w ... -says-nypd

I will say this: I have never seen, with my own eyes, someone doing this, although there have been photo shoots about it: You can google it, if you're that interested.

What's the harm? If it makes it easier for a woman to breastfeed so that people don't bully her into going to the bathroom when junior is hungry, or easier for her to get a tan at the beach, I don't see the problem. Neither a woman nor a man will be allowed into a restaurant shirtless, so.... not seeing the problem.

Yorkvale wrote:Are people really ignoring the difference between breasts and pecks.....?

There is none, except social stigma that this society has created.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I am pro-nudism being legal.
I think it is a matter of free expression.

Clothing is a form of expression, and I am a proponent of free expression, as such, I cannot justify forced expression of any kind. Nudism is similar to the right to be silent. (Except broader and not strictly a legal thing.) Nobody should be able to compel expression.

BUT!!!!

There is another issue at stake here.
Unless those feminists and such arguing that breasts should be allowed are also, in general, pro-nudism, then what they are arguing is that breasts are not of a sexual nature.

This is fine.

But are they then prepared to say that someone who gropes breasts without permission has not committed sexual assault?

Because that's the conclusion you have to reach if you accept their reasoning.

I very much fucking doubt they are fine with this. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm pretty sure if you grope any part of anyone uninvited, it's assault and a crime.
So, no groping, no problem.

The Serbian Empire wrote:
Ekirg wrote:If feminists have the right to go to topless, then they should stop complaining about man-spreading and all of the other usually irrelevant "issues" women face, such as their views on men holding the door, which is apparently now sexist.

The man spreading is nothing when compared to purses... Yet MRAs aren't going around complaining of purses.

No, just about how they have it so hard and how oppressed they are by society.

I don't see anyone telling them their Viagra isn't covered by medical insurance or that procedures/medication for their sexual organs are not covered for religious reasons. But that is a different topic.

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:56 pm**

If men don't have to cover up, then neither do women.

NationStates

Do women have the right to expose their chests?