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

[Spoder]

Male breasts are just the same.

Believe me, some people grope male breasts.

Exactly. You'll find that I've argued all along in this thread that being topless should be illegal for everyone, regardless of gender.

BUT WHY?

ITS A FUCKING SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTIC, NOT A SEX ORGAN.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because fuck peoples rights if they're a small enough minority, right?

Wow. You do realize your so-called "rights" are to violate the rights of a much larger group? So...fuck people's rights if their rights are already fucked with, I guess.

Which right is violated by people seeing something they don't like?
You think censorship is something society should tolerate?

[Greater Soviet Ukraine]

This matter is hotly debated. Please consult your local physician for further advances in the argument.

Lay it off, guys, scientists have been debating this for ages. A bunch of NS posters could hardly know better.

No, they haven't been debating this for ages, scientists are smart enough to know the difference between sexual organs and a gland used to feed children.

Hotly debated as in not everyone has reached a consensus. Science is tough.

[Excidium Planetis]

1. Breasts are used in sex.
2. Breasts involve the sexes... in women, they lactate and are usually larger.

So yes, Breasts are sexual organs. Admit it.

1. Only because they're always covered, if they weren't, they lose their sexualization.
2. Yes, for babies to obtain food from their mothers. But I'm guessing by your logic that that's sexual abuse?

No, they're not, their mammary glands used to feed children. Sexual organs are things like the penis and vagina, which are used in sexual activity and reproduction.

1. No, because stimulation of the breasts can lead to arousal and even, reportedly, orgasm.
2. No, I never mentioned sexual abuse. I said it's a sexual characteristic.

It is a sex organ.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Anyone who says no to this is a misogynistic pig

You can't paint all opponents with the same brush, and I happen to be in favour of legalization (as it already is here in Canada). Generalization rarely works, if ever.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. Only because they're always covered, if they weren't, they lose their sexualization.
2. Yes, for babies to obtain food from their mothers. But I'm guessing by your logic that that's sexual abuse?

No, they're not, their mammary glands used to feed children. Sexual organs are things like the penis and vagina, which are used in sexual activity and reproduction.

1. No, because stimulation of the breasts can lead to arousal and even, reportedly, orgasm.
2. No, I never mentioned sexual abuse. I said it's a sexual characteristic.

It is a sex organ.

So what?
We see them on animals all the time.

[Spoder]

1. Only because they're always covered, if they weren't, they lose their sexualization.
2. Yes, for babies to obtain food from their mothers. But I'm guessing by your logic that that's sexual abuse?

No, they're not, their mammary glands used to feed children. Sexual organs are things like the penis and vagina, which are used in sexual activity and reproduction.

1. No, because stimulation of the breasts can lead to arousal and even, reportedly, orgasm.
2. No, I never mentioned sexual abuse. I said it's a sexual characteristic.

It is a sex organ.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=secondary+sex ... +sex+organ

You're wrong.

[Excidium Planetis]

1. Breasts are used in sex.
2. Breasts involve the sexes... in women, they lactate and are usually larger.

So yes, Breasts are sexual organs. Admit it.

Is Skin a sexual organ?

Skin isn't an organ.

[Antioch States]

Neither men nor women should go topless.

[New haven america]

No, they haven't been debating this for ages, scientists are smart enough to know the difference between sexual organs and a gland used to feed children.

Hotly debated as in not everyone has reached a consensus. Science is tough.

No, no, they've reached a consensus a long, long, long time ago, they're mammary glands used to feed children, not sex organs.

Read a biology text book.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

And now we devolve into 'who ought to have these things we call 'rights' and who doesn't need to have theirs supported'. Same as always.

Once again folks - your 'rights' end where mine begins. There is no harm in having people keep their goram clothes on, either. I've yet to see a cogent example of WHY women ought to go topless in this discussion. "Because I want to" doesn't cut it. "Because men can" doesn't either, as it is not the same thing. "Because why not" is lame.

There's plenty of people who do not want to see nekkid folks running about all the time. Got a number of you suggesting those who do are a relatively small minority. Well guess what? This is not something that is 'infringing on your rights'. It IS a choice. It is not remotely the same as being gay, being a different gender, having a disability, or any of those things that actually MATTER in people's lives, and do happen to need some attention and some support so that they can be treated like worthwhile human beings, and not be discriminated against.

So again, why? What is the big deal with shaking up a fairly standard societal acceptance that we ought to have some limitations on how much of our bodies is acceptable out in public?

Is this really such a need for some to take public transit without their tops? To show up to work sans shirt? To stand out with the road crews in nothing but a reflective vest? What is it?

There's beaches and swimming areas where you can get down to next to nothing without a problem. There are the nudist areas that have gotten far more acceptable in the public eye, it seems. There's your own homes, your own properties, private clubs or other such areas.

And everyone who doesn't want to see all the skin everywhere? Should we have to mark out skin/shirts zones in cities so that both sides can have their 'rights' intact? Do we need to get that silly with things, just so a few can let the nips fly free?

I'm sorry, but this whole thing reeks of ridiculousness and an immature, selfish attitude. And ain't a damn thing y'all can say to convince me otherwise at this point. And I certainly don't want to hear any 'OH GOD HE LOOKED AT ME' bullshit from the same when you attract attention over it all.

Ridiculous and unnecessary.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Is Skin a sexual organ?

Skin isn't an organ.

It is, actually. That's the common question so many get wrong: what's the largest human organ? The skin, is the correct answer.

[Ostroeuropa]

Is Skin a sexual organ?

Skin isn't an organ.

...
You're uh...
*Sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin

the skin is an organ

[Spoder]

Who the fuck are you to decide that?

[Greater Soviet Ukraine]

1. Breasts are used in sex.
2. Breasts involve the sexes... in women, they lactate and are usually larger.

So yes, Breasts are sexual organs. Admit it.

1. Only because they're always covered, if they weren't, they lose their sexualization.
2. Yes, for babies to obtain food from their mothers. But I'm guessing by your logic that that's sexual abuse?

No, they're not, their mammary glands used to feed children. Sexual organs are things like the penis and vagina, which are used in sexual activity and reproduction.

Flawed logic, so if my armpits are covered, they're sexy? And if they're not, they aren't?

..... Sexy armpits.

[Novorobo]

Uh, ok?
I'm more of an ass person, frankly. I'm actually supporting it because i'm sick of prudes being upset about things that are none of their business. I'd prefer it if nudism were normal for people to do. I personally wouldn't, but if people want to, it harms noone, so they should be able to.

So few people go topless where it's legalized as I've said, so what does it even matter? A few people may do it, a few prudes may be upset, this affects probably 1% (or some very small percentage) of the population or less. I don't see the debate, honestly.

Even if only 1% of women do this, it could cause more than 1% of men to be distracted.

[Excidium Planetis]

Exactly. You'll find that I've argued all along in this thread that being topless should be illegal for everyone, regardless of gender.

BUT WHY?

ITS A FUCKING SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTIC, NOT A SEX ORGAN.

That's not what you said:

Breasts aren't naturally involved in sex.

They've become a sexual organ.

I already did say they are technically a sexual organ.

I suppose contradicting yourself helps your argument?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Is Skin a sexual organ?

Skin isn't an organ.

Wrong. The Integumentary system exists for a reason, and is a organ system meant for damage, abrasion, and loss of water.

[Spoder]

1. Only because they're always covered, if they weren't, they lose their sexualization.
2. Yes, for babies to obtain food from their mothers. But I'm guessing by your logic that that's sexual abuse?

No, they're not, their mammary glands used to feed children. Sexual organs are things like the penis and vagina, which are used in sexual activity and reproduction.

Flawed logic, so if my armpits are covered, they're sexy? And if they're not, they aren't?

..... Sexy armpits.

C'mon, give me a sniff...

...MMMMM BABY, MMMM THOSE PITS.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

So few people go topless where it's legalized as I've said, so what does it even matter? A few people may do it, a few prudes may be upset, this affects probably 1% (or some very small percentage) of the population or less. I don't see the debate, honestly.

Even if only 1% of women do this, it could cause more than 1% of men to be distracted.

Distraction isn't a crime. And that's why so few women do it, they don't need or want the attention, and I don't blame them.

[Spoder]

BUT WHY?

ITS A FUCKING SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTIC, NOT A SEX ORGAN.

That's not what you said:

Breasts aren't naturally involved in sex.

They've become a sexual organ.

I already did say they are technically a sexual organ.

I suppose contradicting yourself helps your argument?

I corrected my previous mistake, you're wrong

[Excidium Planetis]

Skin isn't an organ.

...
You're uh...
*Sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin

the skin is an organ

Okay, sure. But it isn't a sexual characteristic, and banning skin is impractical (Though I did say earlier in this thread we should all wear biohazard suits).

[New haven america]

Is Skin a sexual organ?

Skin isn't an organ.

... Yes it fucking is, it's the largest organ of the integumentary system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin

[Holy Chuder]

Nip Slip!

[High Germany]

No. Anyone who even proclaims any sense of logic should say no. Men and women are different not just physically, but mentally. The male's brain reacts to the sight of plump breasts, curves, and large bottoms by releasing testosterone, adrenaline, and an erection. Why? Because these things indicate a healthy female, therefor, healthy offspring, therefor, breed baby breed.

My brain does no such thing.

Then you're either:
A) A female
B) Have low testosterone

The level of testosterone, lets call it test for the sake of faster typing, determines your body's response to what I've stated about healthy females. Men of low test respond less aggressively and are more controlled. Men of high test respond more aggressively and are less controlled. A test level in between these two points is considered a healthy level of test.