Topless bathers beware... 1933 laws still in force! [Archive]

Stu2630

04-20-2008, 09:30 AM

Boreas

Secondly, men have far more restrictions on issues of appearance than women do and yet you don't hear us demanding equality in that respect.

Really? In what way?

In formal settings, men have to wear ties and women don't
Aside from shirts and ties, men tend to be restricted when it comes to the range of colours which can be worn
Women can wear pants, shorts, skirts, dresses, smocks, cullottes. Men are generally restricted to pants and shorts
Women have a vastly greater range of fabrics from which their clothes are made, like taffeta, satin, velvet, crépe and so on
Women have a vastly greater range of headgear including hats, headscarves, cowls and so on
Women have a vastly greater range of acceptable hairstyles and hair adornments than most men could ever consider
Women's shoe styles vary far more than men's (colours, fabrics, heel styles and height). Same with boots.
Women have a vastly greater range of cosmetic choices not open to men (lisptick, lip gloss, foundation, blusher, eye-liner, eye-shadow, mascara, nail colour)
Women have a vastly greater range of accessories they can carry such as handbags of various sizes and styles, purses, and so on.
Women have a vastly greater range of jewellery than is available to menI'm sure I can think of some more if you like.

Boreas, don't forget I spent the first 13-years of my life designated as female and able to enjoy many of these. Then, all of a sudden, I was confronted by the reality of being male and having these choices taken away that that you just take for granted. Being male has its compensations, but when it comes to choices regarding personal appearance, we really do get the bum deal!

Stu

Boreas

04-20-2008, 09:47 AM

In Ontario women have been able to go topless for about 10 years now --due to a charge of indecency and a Charter challenge ---but almost no women have exercised that right. Women were more upset by the ruling than men were.

I have also seen that. I think part of the issue is that not many women know that it is legal for women to be topfree where it is okay for men to be topfree. When I tell women that, they are usually surprised. I think if it were more the norm, then we might see more women exercising that right.

Also, there is a lot of pressure on women and a lot of other issues that come into play. I have not exercised my right to be topfree in Ontario, or other parts of Canada, for a variety of reasons. A big reason is that I would likely be the only person, and I am a chicken. One day though, I will not be chicken and will just do it.

I agree, I think that the beach, or other spots where men would go topfree ought to be places where women can go topfree.

nudetech

04-20-2008, 11:47 AM

men have far more restrictions

There is a difference between legal and social restrictions. Men have the legal right to wear dresses. Most chose not to, but a few do. Likewise, most women may chose not to go topless, but it should be their choice.

-chris

Stu2630

04-20-2008, 12:23 PM

There is a difference between legal and social restrictions. Men have the legal right to wear dresses. Most chose not to, but a few do. Likewise, most women may chose not to go topless, but it should be their choice.That's completely wrong. Being able to do something means REALLY being able to do it, not merely being able to do it in theory only. A right that you can't exercise may just as well not exist: it's meaningless. Imagine if Malta brought out a law which said that yes, a woman can go topless on the beach but we won't protect her if she gets the kr@p beaten out of her by indignant citizens or if she gets fired from her job when her employer finds out. Would that be OK, then?

You think men have any realistic right to wear dresses - legal or otherwise? Try it. You'll find that, aside from the physical danger you'll put yourself in, there will be other hazards, often with legal backing. In the vast majority of jobs, if you are a male and you turn up for work in a dress, or any other item even remotely associated with femininity in our prevailing culture, you'll be deemed to be disregarding the employer's dress code, being a distraction or disruption in the workplace etc., and the law won't protect you when you get fired.

The simple fact is that all societies treat the sexes differently for cultural reasons and I don't have a problem with that because the sexes are different. And that can include, in some cases, allowing one sex to do something which the other sex can't because it evens itself out in the long run. Most women in Malta don't want the right to go topless any more than most men in the UK want to go to work in a dress. Both forms of behaviour are viewed as deviant and potentially dysfunctional in their respective societies. The penalty for the woman sunbathing topless on a Maltese beach is most likely to be a modest fine whereas the guy who turns up for work in strapless gown will risk ridicule, loss of his livelihood and long-term social exclusion.

Stu

nudetech

04-20-2008, 01:49 PM

But having the legal right is the first step. You can't even begin to address the social issues if something is illegal to begin with. By your argument the US should not have ended segregation because a black person who decided to exercise that right and move into a white neighborhood may have been (and were) lynched.

Also, two wrongs don't make a right. If you feel society is unfair in its limitations on male fashion, try and set to right, don't use it as an excuse to perpetrate further injustice.

Oh, and there was a man in a skirt at a conference I went to recently. No one cared. I am not saying it is common, or easy, but at least you won't be arrested.

-chris

Naturist Mark

04-20-2008, 02:46 PM

You think men have any realistic right to wear dresses - legal or otherwise? Try it. You'll find that, aside from the physical danger you'll put yourself in, there will be other hazards, often with legal backing.

Is this really true in Britain?

If so, then this is an area where the US is far more liberal. While transvestitism is far from a majority clothing option, it is not all that uncommon. It is not illegal anywhere, and while some transvestites might be subject to violence from retrograde hooligans, such violence is not common and is vigorously prosecuted. It would be unheard of for any court to allow trumped up charges against a person merely for cross gender attire, any court officer who allowed such a travesty would be quickly removed from employment.

-Mark

Boreas

04-20-2008, 03:19 PM

There is a difference between legal and social restrictions. Men have the legal right to wear dresses. Most chose not to, but a few do. Likewise, most women may chose not to go topless, but it should be their choice.

-chris

But having the legal right is the first step. You can't even begin to address the social issues if something is illegal to begin with. By your argument the US should not have ended segregation because a black person who decided to exercise that right and move into a white neighborhood may have been (and were) lynched.

Yes, Chris. I agree.

If so, then this is an area where the US is far more liberal. While transvestitism is far from a majority clothing option, it is not all that uncommon. It is not illegal anywhere, and while some transvestites might be subject to violence from retrograde hooligans, such violence is not common and is vigorously prosecuted. It would be unheard of for any court to allow trumped up charges against a person merely for cross gender attire, any court officer who allowed such a travesty would be quickly removed from employment.

That is right. In fact, at one time it was illegal for women to dress in "men's" clothing. This included wearing pants.

Here too is a "man skirt":

http://www.utilikilts.com/

While I know they are not named skirts, there are in effect the same thing. The Scots have worn kilts for many years, though the Brits did try to outlaw them and banish them forever. That didn't work very well as I recall.

Sanslines

04-20-2008, 03:35 PM

I don't have a problem with it. :) Malta is a strictly Roman Catholic country and they are right to impose their own standards. Most Mediterranean countries allow women to go topless on their beaches so it's rather nice to find a country where they still retain traditional ideals of decency and decorum.

This doesn't affect nudists because we are talking about textile women using textile beaches.

Stu

Of course you have no problem with forcing your beliefs on all women. You refer to it as maintaining "decency". Yet, if you really think about it, there is absolutely nothing more decent or indecent about a woman's breasts as compared to a man's breasts. Don't be so rigid and please try to ponder and change some of your oh so rigid beliefs.

Sanslines

04-20-2008, 03:39 PM

MoonShadow

I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before you'll get it through your head, but I'll try it again. I am not against nudity - I am no more against nudity than I am against sex. I simply want to be able to continue to avoid encountering other people's nakedness.

BIG difference.

Stu

Oh Stu,

Shame on you! Just caught you in a big fib! In the past, you stated that you were not against nudism but were against nudity. You now seem to have had an epiphany and claim that you are not against nudity.
You can certainly avoid other people's nakedness if you just stay home with your window shades down. Will you do this? Oh no, you have to demand that others change their behaviours to accomodate you. How selfish and how unfair! Now let the whirring go on...........and on..............and on.............and on...........

Bob S.

04-20-2008, 07:26 PM

Stu:" This doesn't affect nudists because we are talking about textile women using textile beaches."

Stu, you have been here for years and still do not understand nudists. This does affect nudism. It affects how society looks at the body. Nudists do not consider any part of the body as indecent, yet the court declared the woman's breast as indecent merely because that's how it has always been since the days that women had much less rights than they do now.

Each time any part of the naked body is considered indecent, it is a nudist issue.

Stu:"men have far more restrictions on issues of appearance than women do and yet you don't hear us demanding equality in that respect."

Stu, dress codes are vastly different than declaring illegal the exposure of part of the body. A business can declare any kind of dress code it wants. Where I work, it is certain color shirt and pants. It states nothing about women being able to wear skirts or dresses. I'm not sure it is allowed for non-management.

Stu:"Imagine if Malta brought out a law which said that yes, a woman can go topless on the beach but we won't protect her if she gets the kr@p beaten out of her by indignant citizens or if she gets fired from her job when her employer finds out. Would that be OK, then?"

Please, Stu. The govt is responsible for protecting the rights of its citizenry and keep them safe. Equal rights is what this case was about. It was not about special rights. Since a man could go topless, then she should have had that right.

Stu:"Most women in Malta don't want the right to go topless"

Stop making generalizations that you cannot prove. This is one of your favorite sayings, Stu. "But they don't want it, so we shouldn't give it to them." They don't want it because it is illegal and that has shaped their view of it. There were women who did not want the right to vote because they never had the right to vote and saw no reason to have it.

The only reason we still have this double standard is because judges are still looking backwards by stating that it should be illegal because it is illegal. The female breast is indecent because it is has always been indecent. There is no logic in these decisions.

Bob S.

MoonShadow

04-20-2008, 07:33 PM

Excellent post, Bob S. However, Stu will not "get this through his head" about the issue affecting nudism.

Stu2630

04-21-2008, 05:10 AM

Sanslines

Just caught you in a big fib! In the past, you stated that you were not against nudism but were against nudity.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not against all nudity - I was nude myself this morning in the shower - it's public nudity out of generally accepted places that I am opposed to. In Malta, topless women are perceived at semi-naked and that is not "generally accepted" in that country.

You can certainly avoid other people's nakedness if you just stay home with your window shades down. Will you do this? Oh no, you have to demand that others change their behaviours to accommodate you.

More silliness: it's not just me - as an aberrant individual. The vast majority of people do not regard public nakedness as acceptable behaviour.

BobS

Each time any part of the naked body is considered indecent, it is a nudist issue.

That's like saying that every time a woman walks down any street anywhere in the world without her head being covered, it's a Muslim issue. This is only a nudist issue because you are choosing to make it one. And you are making it one because you insist that everyone else in the world should adopt your nudist values. Textiles shouldn't go around trying to dictate to nudists how they should view the human body nor what state of dress is acceptable on a nudist beach. It's nothing to do with us because that's your lifestyle practised in your world. But the textile world is ours and we should be able to regulate it as we see fit - to textile values.

Stu, dress codes are vastly different than declaring illegal the exposure of part of the body. A business can declare any kind of dress code it wants. Where I work, it is certain color shirt and pants. It states nothing about women being able to wear skirts or dresses. I'm not sure it is allowed for non-management.

It is still a matter of the sexes being treated differently with regard to issues of dress (or undress) on the basis of their sex. I have no doubt there are places where a man can wear a dress - but there are also places where a woman can go topless. The principle is the same and both our social mores and the law upholds different treatment in that respect.

The govt is responsible for protecting the rights of its citizenry and keep them safe.

It's also responsible for keeping the public environment welcoming and comfortable for all.

Equal rights is what this case was about. It was not about special rights. Since a man could go topless, then she should have had that right.

I don't agree this is about equal rights. You know that my view is that a man does not have breasts in the sense that a woman has breasts and so there is not a true parallel.

Stop making generalizations that you cannot prove. This is one of your favorite sayings, Stu. "But they don't want it, so we shouldn't give it to them." They don't want it because it is illegal and that has shaped their view of it. There were women who did not want the right to vote because they never had the right to vote and saw no reason to have it.

I can't prove it scientifically, Bob, any more than you can prove the converse. But from my knowledge of Malta, which is a terrifically religious and conservative place, I would be astonished if most women there would actually want that. The women of Malta are well-educated and informed. They know what happens in other places and that women can go topless in Spain, Italy and France, yet there has been no call for it to be permitted in Malta so far as I know. I believe that it's not just that they don't want that right - they also don't want to have to put up with other women going topless either - and I'm on the women's side in this whyereas you are just following the nudist ideology!

The only reason we still have this double standard is because judges are still looking backwards by stating that it should be illegal because it is illegal.

They are saying it should continue to be illegal because native people do not want it on their island.

The female breast is indecent because it is has always been indecent. There is no logic in these decisions.

Everything which is indecent or obscene is deemed such because of historical and cultural factors rather than "logic" - but we fashion the world as we want to live in it and how it makes us happy. We are humans and we should not enslave our thinking to the rigid and soulless doctrines of cold logic.

Stu

Sanslines

04-21-2008, 10:03 AM

This is Stu's philosophy in a nutshell:

Stu says that a woman's breasts are indecent because the majority of society says that they are. Furthermore, that's the way it was and therefore that is the way that it must always be (at least in Stu's lifetime). Laws that are supported by the majority of society are never wrong and must never be challenged regardless of what the law allows or does not allow.

Stu2630

04-21-2008, 11:51 AM

Sanslines

Yet again you you are putting your own distorted spin on what I believe.

Stu says that a woman's breasts are indecent because the majority of society says that they are.

No. The exposure of women's breasts is regarded as indecent in many societies. Every society is entitled to impose its own standards and ideas of decency.

Furthermore, that's the way it was and therefore that is the way that it must always be (at least in Stu's lifetime).

No. Standards and mores in matters like this can change - but they should do so not because of having some alien ideology imposed upon them by a "we-know-best" minority faction like certain nudists or feminists, but in a progressive and evolutionary way and withe the full and informed consent of the people.

Laws that are supported by the majority of society are never wrong and must never be challenged regardless of what the law allows or does not allow.

No. Of course there should be, by default, an upholding of the principle that the law reflects the prevailing moral beliefs of the society which is expected to obey those laws. No democratic system can function without that being the case. Under a democratic system, people are entitled to challenge the status - in fact - they should do just that if they think it is wrong. Having said that, the challenge should, so far as possible, be made within the existing law. I have challenged bad laws myself, but I will still obey them.

Stu

GrayWolf

04-21-2008, 12:07 PM

Of course there should be, by default, an upholding of the principle that the law reflects the prevailing moral beliefs of the society which is expected to obey those laws.
Stu

So it was wrong for blacks to take it upon themselves to move to the front of the bus, use the white lunch counter, etc? Thanks Stu, now I understand where democracy went wrong.

MoonShadow

04-21-2008, 12:30 PM

"we-know-best" minority faction like certain nudists or feminists"

Feminists? Where did you come up with this word in regard to this thread?

MoonShadow

04-21-2008, 12:37 PM

Excellent statement, GrayWolf!!

Stu2630

04-21-2008, 12:42 PM

GrayWolf

You can't compare the plight of blacks to that of women who want to go topless.

Firstly, there is the issue of magnitude. A starving man may be justified in stealing a roll of bread but that doesn't mean a man who didn't quite manage to have enough lunch is entitled to steal a large fillet steak and a bottle of vintage Dom Perignon. In the days of effective American apartheid, blacks were treated as inferior - almost sub-human - and they had no voice or representation in government. Women in modern western democracies are not treated in any way like that. They have full democratic rights and so they have no excuse to break the law.

Secondly, there is the issue of immutability. A person who is black is that way because of inherent characteristics. They are black from birth until death and they can not change that even temporarily. A woman who is topless is simply exercising a sartorial choice. There are places where she can exercise the choice to go topless and places where she can't. If she can't go topless, she can still use that place but conditional upon a very small adjustment to her state of dress - i.e. some kind of top.

MoonShadow

You remind me of some kind of cheerleader. You can't play the game yourself so you just mindlessly cheer on the boys in your own team. No wonder you can't see how feminism features in this discussion.

Stu

Boreas

04-21-2008, 01:01 PM

"we-know-best" minority faction like certain nudists or feminists"

Feminists? Where did you come up with this word in regard to this thread?

I might have brought that one into the discussion when I said this was a feminist issue, not just a nudist issue.

Boreas

04-21-2008, 02:13 PM

Wow Stu, you have some interesting views. MoonShadow merely a cheerleader??? I cannot WAIT to hear her response to that one!

A woman is a woman because of inherent characteristics too. Also, if you think that women have full equal rights, and always have had, then you need to look at your history books again. Women are still often second class, or slightly less powerful than men. If a woman happens to be ambitious she can have some grief from that. Just ask Hillary Clinton! (I realise she also has grief for other reasons, before anyone comments on that)

As for challenging laws. Laws were generally put in place by white men. These laws tend to benefit white men the most. Anyone who does not meet that criteria will often have to fight to gain their own rights, or amend the laws so they are at least not damaged by them.

nimrod

04-21-2008, 02:23 PM

Even though the laws have not changed, the view of what is indecent has. Think of what was consider decent attire then, only the arms, legs, and face were exposed, and before that that would have been considered indecent. At that time the bikini was not invented, but that would have been considered indecent and someone might have been arrested if they wore one. It was only a few women that changed the views of the many when they started showing their arms and legs at the beach instead of the full body swimsuit that only exposed face and hands. There are a few that still consider the exposed female breast as indecent, but the more women that go topless the less that number will be, I hope anyway.

Stu2630

04-21-2008, 02:54 PM

Boreas

Just check out MoonShadow's recent posts directed at me. They are nothing more than congratulatory interjections and contain no topical content whatsoever. She accuses me of "whirring" so I accuse her of "cheerleading".

Of course a woman is a woman because of inherent characteristics - but a topless woman is that by choice whereas there is nothing a black person can do to cease being black. Also, the people who were against the blacks enjoying the same privileges as whites were generally white people who despised blacks. Many, if not most, people who object to women going topless are other women and they certainly don't despise womankind. So the racial parallel falls down.

Women are still often second class, or slightly less powerful than men.

I don't accept that is the case in modern western-style democracies. Power is a complex notion and applies not just to political power, but also to social and even domestic/family power. Overall, I think women hold just as much power as men and, in some respects, more.

Laws were generally put in place by white men. These laws tend to benefit white men the most.

Not in my country. Over here, the laws ludicrously and grotesquely favour women over men in all manner of ways and to such an extent that there is now a real male backlash. I could give you a lengthy list to show the gross inequalities of laws drafted in women's favour. If I could gain all the benefits women get and the only thing required of me was to wear something covering my nipples when in public, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat!

nimrod

Even though the laws have not changed, the view of what is indecent has.

Of course. And that's through evolution and not some "revolution imposed by a vociferous minority.

There are a few that still consider the exposed female breast as indecent, but the more women that go topless the less that number will be, I hope anyway.

No, There are alotthat still consider the exposed female breast as indecent, including many women. Breasts are considered by most women to be intimate parts of their anatomy and, while they don't mind their thighs, arms and backs being exposed, their breasts are an altogether different proposition. Western culture has toyed with exposing breasts - topless beaches found their heyday back in the late 1980s/early 1990s, but those times are past and female breast exposure has become passé, unfashionable and rather revolting to many. When I go on holiday, most women now have their breasts covered even in the traditionally uninhibited zones of Scandinavia. Most of the women who still insist on going topless are middle-aged or elderly while the younger women are nearly all wearing tops. And a good thing too. :D

Stu

Boreas

04-21-2008, 04:01 PM

Wow Stu, I would never thought that you had some misogyny in you.

Not in my country. Over here, the laws ludicrously and grotesquely favour women over men in all manner of ways and to such an extent that there is now a real male backlash. I could give you a lengthy list to show the gross inequalities of laws drafted in women's favour. If I could gain all the benefits women get and the only thing required of me was to wear something covering my nipples when in public, I'd agree to it in a heartbeat!

This quote is perilously close to that.

From my view, the so called rights women have were gotten through hard won battles. It has generally been a man's world, and to some degree, still is.

MoonShadow

04-21-2008, 05:20 PM

Boreas, glad you noticed that also. Many other of Stu's threads have hinted toward such also.

Wrong Stu, women do not hold as much power as men. We still have a long way to go to equal the same power. You more than likely resent the progress and power we have been able to obtain. I find that interesting as you lived the first 12 or 13 years of your life as a female?

And what is this? "the laws ludicrously and grotesquely favour women over men in all manner of ways". Think your true feelings are slipping out now, Stu. I knew you were a sexist, and you are showing more and more that you are.

Oh good, I am glad you liken me to a cheerleader! I rally for nudists which this forum is for, not for those who are anti-nudity.

Ra Ra Nudists! :)

Sanslines

04-21-2008, 05:47 PM

Boreas,

Stu secretly belives that Moonshadow should stay out of this forum and go back to the kitchen where she can entertain herself with 'woman's work' such as baking brownies and cooking for men. This forum should be reserved for men so that they can discuss the important issues of the day and women should be relegated to the kitchens because the law says so. As we all know from Stu, laws should not be changed just because some disgruntled group of minority women want them to be changed. Furthermore, Stu believes that Moonshadow should be grateful that he is looking out to protect her 'vanity' and 'dignity' from the 'confused nudist philosophy'.

Boreas

04-21-2008, 07:10 PM

Oh Sanslines, how could I have not known! :eek: I guess that means I should go back to the kitchen and of course cover up. Who knows what lusts I might trigger in men!!! :rolleyes:

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

:laundry: :shrug:

Bob S.

04-21-2008, 08:00 PM

Stu:"This is only a nudist issue because you are choosing to make it one."

Stu, social nudism is about having parks, beaches, and other areas to go naked. Whenever a court declares a part of the body as indecent, it can have repercussions elsewhere. Not allowing a woman to go topless in one pool could affect the rental agreement of another pool by nudists. It could cause more restrictive laws to be set up. It could affect the status of a nude beach. All because of a single ruling that seems to have nothing to do with segregated nudism.

Stu:"It is still a matter of the sexes being treated differently with regard to issues of dress (or undress) on the basis of their sex."

But the major difference is who is making the rules. The businesses have a lot of leeway in declaring a dress code for both employees and customers. The govt does not have much leeway.

Stu:"You know that my view is that a man does not have breasts in the sense that a woman has breasts and so there is not a true parallel."

All breasts are vestiges of female anatomy. The only thing that stops most boys from becoming girls in utero is a surge of testosterone. In that sense, there is no difference between men's and women's breasts. There are some men who have larger breasts that some women. There is only one reason why they are treated differently, because society declared long ago that women should not have the right to show their breasts out of a sense of female modesty. They wouldn't want the men to lust after the women, after all.

Stu:"and I'm on the women's side in this whyereas you are just following the nudist ideology!"

Stu, I know you know it isn't that simplistic. You feel that women should decide for themselves whether it should be legal. I believe that women should decide for themselves whether they want to indulge in legally going without a top. I am absolutely on the women's side as I want it to be their choice whether to do it. You want it to be their choice whether it should be illegal.

Stu:"They are saying it should continue to be illegal because native people do not want it on their island."

That argument should come last on the line of reasons why to keep the status quo. Each time, the state should have to prove their case why the law should stand. And "well, it has always been that way adn everyone likes it." isn't an appropriate defense. Why should the difference between men and women continue to endure? If you want to answer that question, Stu, do so without the supposed opinion of others. Mount a good legal defense for the law on its own.

Stu:" You can't compare the plight of blacks to that of women who want to go topless."

A woman is a woman due to immutable and inherent characteristics. She can't help being a woman any more than I can help being a Caucasian. It's genetic. But the laws are treating her differently due to things that she can't control. The laws saying that women can't go topless even though men are allowed can be compared to blacks being told they can't go places similarly dressed that white people can go. Breast size and skin color are both immutable characteristics. Gender and ethnicity are both immutable characteristics. Yet we will allow the former in both cases to be more restricted than the latter.

Bob S.

Stu2630

04-22-2008, 08:44 AM

People who accuse me of misogyny and sexism are making no sense. My beef is with the laws which discriminate against men - laws which are made by politicians, most of whom are men. Here are a few examples: in the UK, the age at which we can claim state pension is 65 for men and 60 for women - even though most women pay considerably less in pension contributions over their working lifetimes than men and even though they have a longer life expectancy. In the UK, separated fathers have few rights over their children and there is a presumption in favour of the mother getting custody and the father having to ask for visitation rights. If a woman returns to work after an absence for childcare, she can claim a plethora of rights whereas a man in the same situation will be treated. And check out some of the issues raised by the Men's Rights movement:

http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/content.htm#reallybadnews

Somehow, though, insurance companies are allowed to charge females less for motor insurance and life insurance than they charge men, yet if I charged a woman more in my restaurant for a coffee because she's likely to stay in there longer than an average male customer, the law would jump on me!

All this is aside from the "appearance" privileges which women enjoy and men do not - and this is an area central to this thread because female toplessness is an appearance issue.

BobS

Whenever a court declares a part of the body as indecent, it can have repercussions elsewhere. Not allowing a woman to go topless in one pool could affect the rental agreement of another pool by nudists. It could cause more restrictive laws to be set up. It could affect the status of a nude beach.

I have never known any European court determine that any part of the human body is indecent per se. Rather, it is the circumstances of its exposure which may be deemed indecent. Prohibiting toplessness on general public beaches need not mean that there shouldn't be other beaches where it is permitted. Our lawmakers and judges should be more sophisticated than you imply.

But the major difference is who is making the rules. The businesses have a lot of leeway in declaring a dress code for both employees and customers. The govt does not have much leeway.

If a government is serious about equalizing the rules of appearance between the sexes, it can (and does) institute laws which affect business, in respect of employees, customers and business partners. If I had a restaurant, by law I could not turn away a customer for being black, or for being female, but I could certainly bar a man wearing a dress. A school here was recently forced to change its policy which prevented female students from wearing uniform trousers, but the government funded Equal Opportunities Commission stated that it would not entertain any complaint from a boy who wanted to wear a skirt. Governments intrude into almost all aspects of life including business and also matters of appearance and so we can't logically say it is entitled to do this but the issue of toplessness on beaches should be a 'no-go' area for them.

The only thing that stops most boys from becoming girls in utero is a surge of testosterone. In that sense, there is no difference between men's and women's breasts.

Hang on. Just a few weeks ago people here were telling me that it was the chromosomes which determine a person's sex. I pointed out that was simplistic, just as claiming a person's sex is simply a matter of which hormone dominates, and that a person's sex is a whole package of characteristics including their self-perception and the cultural aspects associated with it. A female breast is a female breast partly because it is a functioning organ (it produces milk when a woman is pregnant) and partly because it has cultural associations which mean it is regarded both as a feminine attribute and also has a strong role in sexual activity. A man has vestigial nipples which don't do anything and are not viewed as sexual.

I believe that women should decide for themselves whether they want to indulge in legally going without a top. I am absolutely on the women's side as I want it to be their choice whether to do it. You want it to be their choice whether it should be illegal.

For me, it should only be an individual choice if people - women included - didn't find it objectionable and offensive. But the fact is that they do and so the tiny minority of women on Malta who want to go topless should do so either on their own property, or on a segregated beach.

Stu:"They are saying it should continue to be illegal because native people do not want it on their island."

That argument should come last on the line of reasons why to keep the status quo.

I think it is an excellent reason. We make the world we live in as we want it to be and we regulate it so that as many people are comfortable with it as possible.

Each time, the state should have to prove their case why the law should stand. And "well, it has always been that way adn everyone likes it." isn't an appropriate defense.

There is a well-established principle in English Law which says that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. You don't change a law which most people approve of without an excellent reason, so the onus is not for me to mount a defence, but for those who want to change it to convince the people that the law they like is wrong.

But the laws are treating her differently due to things that she can't control. The laws saying that women can't go topless even though men are allowed can be compared to blacks being told they can't go places similarly dressed that white people can go.

Women and men are different and we do treat the sexes differently in some respects, but that is only justifiable where the majority of the affected sex agrees. If more women are offended by the sight of naked female breasts than actually want to go topless, then utilitarian logic dictates that the majority wishes should be respected.

Stu

nudetech

04-22-2008, 12:58 PM

You can't compare the plight of blacks to that of women who want to go topless.

Firstly, there is the issue of magnitude.

We have all agreed that the magnitude is not the same as segregation, but that does not stop the theory being applicable. An object in motion will stay in motion, and an object at rest will stay at rest, whether it is an atom or planet. I may worry more about a planet heading towards earth than an atom, but the theory still holds. Likewise top free rights may not be as important as segregation, but that does not mean the theories of equality don't apply.

The example of stealing does not apply because it starts with the basis that stealing is morally wrong, but excused where it is the lesser of two evils. Few of us would concede that about toplessness.

Secondly, there is the issue of immutability. A person who is black is that way because of inherent characteristics. They are black from birth until death and they can not change that even temporarily. A woman who is topless is simply exercising a sartorial choice.

Ah, but the law never banned being black, it banned DOING certain things because you are black. It was a personal choice to go into the white restaurant. There were plenty of places they could have gone to eat without disturbing the white customers who didn't want to be disturbed in their eating by the disgusting sight of a black person. To word your view slightly differently, but with the same meaning:

This is a male topless beach. Only men can go topless here. If women want to go topless they need to go to their own, separate but equal, beach. Except the beach isn't equal because we will only give you beaches that are hard to get to and has less facilities.

How would that read if you replaced male/men with white and Women with black and see how it reads. Black people can still use the beach, they just have to wear tops. Just if they want to go topless they have to go to their own beach. Besides, most black people don't want to go topless. And there is a difference between black and white chests (one being vaguely pink, and the other brown). We will just ignore those white people with deep tans, because even though their chests may look the same as a black person's, we know they are white really, so society says its OK.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it.

-chris

Sanslines

04-22-2008, 01:06 PM

Stu,

I was speaking with a male college art student today and asked him about drawing from life (ie nude models). He replied that he would draw from life but would not focus on or feel comfortable drawing 'private parts'. When I asked him further about why some body parts are considered 'private', he replied that he was taught this as a child and also referred to some 'religious reasons'. When I explained to him that real religions are supposed to focus on extending understanding, compassion, and caring to our fellow man and creatures, he looked very perplexed. I further explained to him that the problem is not with religion, but with man's misperceptions and misuse of religion to prohibit something that, if a person thought about logically, should never be prohibited for religious purposes, he could only reply that he really does not believe in religion. He further stated that he has always believed that there are certain 'private parts' to the human body, but never really thought about or challenged those beliefs to determine if his beliefs were sensible or logical.

It just goes to show that some people go through life believing certain things and when attention is brought as to the validity of those beliefs, they are either unable or unwilling to comprehend anything which challenges their beliefs.

BTW, I am in the kitchen baking brownies and won't be able to reply again until the brownies are done.

Stu2630

04-22-2008, 02:12 PM

Nudetech

Likewise top free rights may not be as important as segregation, but that does not mean the theories of equality don't apply...The example of stealing does not apply because it starts with the basis that stealing is morally wrong, but excused where it is the lesser of two evils. Few of us would concede that about toplessness.

You may not concede that, but I would. You see, I argue the utilitarian position that banning toplessness is the lesser of two evils. That's because we have a relatively small restriction on the freedom of a relatively small minority of Maltese women who may wish to go topless compared to the greater evil of far more people of both sexes being made uncomfortable, angry or distressed at the sight of toplessness.

Ah, but the law never banned being black, it banned DOING certain things because you are black.

I have no problem with any kind of segregation - including racial segregation - if there is a consensus by all parties involved that it's what they want. We have organisations in the UK which only admit black people. Segregation is only wicked when it is done without a general consensus of the parties affected AND it is done on the basis that one group is, in some way at least, inferior. This is not the case with regard to toplessness.

Except the beach isn't equal because we will only give you beaches that are hard to get to and has less facilities.

That's a different issue entirely. I have said consistently that nudists should have decent, accessible beaches with facilities every bit as good as those designated as textile. I would say the same for topless beaches.

How would that read if you replaced male/men with white and Women with black and see how it reads. Black people can still use the beach, they just have to wear tops. Just if they want to go topless they have to go to their own beach. Besides, most black people don't want to go topless... Sounds ridiculous doesn't it.

It sounds ridiculous firstly because there is no "decency" issue with regard to black people's chests and there never has been. Black people don't regard their chests as in any way more intimate than white people do. It also sounds a bit odious because it has echoes of racism - i.e. you can't go bare-chested because you are inferior. The reality is that black people generally want to be treated in exactly the same way as white people, whereas women have expectations that they will be treated in certain respects differently to men. We segregate males and females in toilets, changing and locker rooms, but we don't segregate the races in such places. Men and women play different sports, have major differences in physical characteristics, generally dress differently, do their hair differently, speak differently, socialise differently and so on. The differences between the sexes is something which we actually relish - we even encourage gender appropriate behaviour in our children. With the different races, however, the only significant difference is skin colour.

Sanslines

We don't generally base our value systems on pure logic - if we did, our world would be a dreadfully dull place. It would lose all its culture and its and magic. There are certain behaviours which we confine to the private arena such as toileting, discussing intimate issues with our partners, sexual activities and, for those of us who aren't nudists, getting naked often falls into that category. Of course, there is nothing wrong with re-visiting these values from time-to-time to see if we are still comfortable with them; to see if they are still valid or if they are proving dysfunctional in our lives. Sometimes it's good to take a step back and modify or even abandon some of our views, perceptions and values. But that has to be our own decision and we should not be forced to be re-programmed by minority groups with their own agenda, even if they have what appears to be a logical case.

Most of the beaches I go to permit toplessness: I don't like to see it but I tolerate it and wouldn't dream of kicking up a fuss, or even avoiding a good beach merely because I may encounter a topless woman. For me, the disadvantages of having to limit myself to places where toplessness is not permitted outweighs the moderate revulsion of seeing women's bare breasts. In other words, I have made myself become accustomed to it even though I didn't really want to have to do that. But I will always support any country which says they don't want it and are not going to allow it within their borders.

BTW, I am in the kitchen baking brownies and won't be able to reply again until the brownies are done.

Ewww! I didn't know you were into cannibalism! Those poor little girls.

http://www.girlguiding.org.uk/brownies/interview/index.html

:laugh:

Stu

Naturist4Ever

04-22-2008, 03:32 PM

Stu >> Rather, it is the circumstances of its exposure which may be deemed indecent. Prohibiting toplessness on general public beaches need not mean that there shouldn't be other beaches where it is permitted.

How funny, here is an interesting fact for you: "In 1907, Annette Kellerman, an Australian swimmer who championed the use of a one-piece swimsuit, was arrested on a Boston beach for public indecency for wearing her trademark swimsuit".
Times have certainly moved on since 1907! Stu, whether you like it or not and regardless how much you scream or not, yours is ultimately a lost case. And that is just fine, because in the end by using common sense is only going to be for the benefit of everyone, even you.

Sanslines

04-22-2008, 04:18 PM

But that has to be our own decision and we should not be forced to be re-programmed by minority groups with their own agenda, even if they have what appears to be a logical case.
Stu

No one is forcing you to be nude or not nude. Your personal preferences will always be respected and accomodated in this regard. However, you refuse to extend the same courtesy to others and wish to dictate your personal preferences to others. You demand that they be not nude in your presence and yet no one places this demand upon you. You still fail to accept the difference.

MJ_KC

04-22-2008, 04:44 PM

For me, the disadvantages of having to limit myself to places where toplessness is not permitted outweighs the moderate revulsion of seeing women's bare breasts.
Stu

Do you consider your revulsion to be a mainstream reaction for males in a western society?

Bob S.

04-22-2008, 08:14 PM

Stu:"I have never known any European court determine that any part of the human body is indecent per se. Rather, it is the circumstances of its exposure which may be deemed indecent."

The court's decision: The Court in reaction argued that a topless woman on the beach is still considered as indecent in the Maltese society... Any time they declare exposure in public to be indecent, they are declaring the specific part of the body indecent. And yes Stu, that can affect many things.

Stu:"A female breast is a female breast partly because it is a functioning organ (it produces milk when a woman is pregnant) and partly because it has cultural associations which mean it is regarded both as a feminine attribute and also has a strong role in sexual activity."

First part: why are girls told so often to cover their breasts? They are not functioning. How about post-menopausal women? They no longer produce milk. Some women also cannot, due to a hormonal or physical problem, produce milk.

Second part: That is where the crux of the issue stands. It has those cultural associations due mainly to male-dominated societies of yesteryear. Society continues to hold onto these double standards under the pretext that women's bodies are more sexualized than men's.

Third part: It really doesn't have much of a role in sexual activity.

Stu:"For me, it should only be an individual choice if people - women included - didn't find it objectionable and offensive."

Good. Just don't claim our stance is not pro-women. I have clearly given you our side and how I justify it under the women's rights banner. I could just as easily state that you are only arguing under the prude banner.

Stu:"There is a well-established principle in English Law which says that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. You don't change a law which most people approve of without an excellent reason"

Exactly, and civil rights or equal rights are excellent reasons to change a law, even if most people disagree with the change.

Stu:"f more women are offended by the sight of naked female breasts than actually want to go topless, then utilitarian logic dictates that the majority wishes should be respected."

Unless it can be shown that the laws that forbid the exposure are unduly unfair. In NY and parts of Canada for instance, the courts have shown that to be the case.

Stu:"I have no problem with any kind of segregation - including racial segregation - if there is a consensus by all parties involved that it's what they want."

No one can disagree with voluntary segregation, Stu. But that is not what we are talking about here. This is state-mandated segregation.

Stu:"It sounds ridiculous firstly because there is no "decency" issue with regard to black people's chests..."

Well of course it sounds ridiculous, Stu. nudetech was trying to make a point. Let's just pretend that instead of women having to go topless, it was black people? And the reason was because society deemed the dark chest as indecent. Would it still be right to have all blacks and only blacks cover up? If not, then why is it right for women to have their chests declared as indecent only because they are on women? For you, as I recall, it is not even the breast that are indecent, it is the chest as a whole.

Stu:"I didn't know you were into cannibalism! Those poor little girls."

You think cooking brownies is bad?
Chocolate cookies are made of chocolate
Peanut Butter Cookies are made of peanut butter
What do you think Girl Scout cookies are made of? Oh those poor Samoan girls! :(

Bob S.

Stu2630

04-23-2008, 11:30 AM

Nudist4Ever

Times have certainly moved on since 1907! Stu, whether you like it or not and regardless how much you scream or not, yours is ultimately a lost case.

In 1907, there vociferous minority trying to impose their will on the majority was the religious fundamentalists. In the end, they lost and the will of the people won out. That was because swimwear should be suitable for swimming in - not some awful encumbrance. In 2008, the vociferous minority are at the opposite end of the scale - the fundamental wing of the nudist movement . They, too will lose because modern swimwear is neither an encumbrance for swimming (like the old swimming outfits) , nor is it viewed as indecent (like nudity). Nudists have been predicting a general acceptance of public nudity since nudism's inception. It hasn't happened and it won't.

Sanslines

Your personal preferences will always be respected and accomodated in this regard.

Thank you. My personal preference is that you stay well out of my sight, and my family's sight, when you want to be naked. In return, I'll happily accommodate you by supporting the provision of nudist places. You see, you choice to go naked really is a personal preference but my aversion to seeing you naked is gross offence and, when you are naked in the presence of my children, a serious threat to the way I choose to raise them.

MJ_KC

Do you consider your revulsion to be a mainstream reaction for males in a western society?

Not in most European countries; that's why I have made myself tolerate it. But it is certainly a mainstream reaction in some places - places like Malta.

I'm not so sure that I'm too bothered if my attitude is mainstream anyway, as the mainstream male attitude to women's breasts is one of drooling and lust!

Bob

The Court in reaction argued that a topless woman on the beach is still considered as indecent in the Maltese society... Any time they declare exposure in public to be indecent, they are declaring the specific part of the body indecent.

No they are not, Bob, they are not declaring that a woman's breasts are indecent in themselves, but that her exposing them on a beach is indecent. I'm not splitting hairs on this but the difference is important.

First part: why are girls told so often to cover their breasts? They are not functioning. How about post-menopausal women? They no longer produce milk. Some women also cannot, due to a hormonal or physical problem, produce milk.

A woman's breast is designed as a functioning organ. The fact that for some reason it is not producing milk at the time does not mean it is not an "organ" any more than a the penis of man who does not produce sperm is not an organ. Something which is entirely functionless, vestigial and intended by nature to serve no purpose, like a man's nipple, is not a true "organ" of the body.

It has those cultural associations due mainly to male-dominated societies of yesteryear. Society continues to hold onto these double standards under the pretext that women's bodies are more sexualized than men's.

That's your ideological take on this - but it's not mine, Bob, and I don't believe most women would agree with you about that. The women I know think of their breasts as central to their sexuality and gender identity (men don't think of their breast-like tissue in that way). It is a devastating blow to most women to have to have a breast removed and she will go to great expense to have some cosmetic repair done. And any woman who has had such a reconstruction will tell you that she has done it for her own sake, not to please some man.

Third part: It really doesn't have much of a role in sexual activity.

I reckon most people would disagree with you about that one, Bob. The woman's breasts play a major role in foreplay activity for most couples.

Exactly, and civil rights or equal rights are excellent reasons to change a law, even if most people disagree with the change.

The whole point of equal rights and civil rights is to make life better for everyone. If, in conferring equal rights on one group whether they want these rights or not, and even if they don't want other members of that group to have such rights, you are defeating the very point of having such rights. Principles such as equal rights are there to serve the interests of humanity - they are not divine edicts which must be followed slavishly and to the n-th degree!

Unless it can be shown that the laws that forbid the exposure are unduly unfair. In NY and parts of Canada for instance, the courts have shown that to be the case.

The courts in NY and parts of Canada must determine such issues for themselves. Fortunately, many other places have had the good sense to approach this issue from a utilitarian standpoint rather than blindly obeying the imbecilic canon of "equality for equality's sake".

No one can disagree with voluntary segregation, Stu.

Some people do here, Bob. Some people don't think that I should have any right to enjoy a textile-only beach.

But that is not what we are talking about here. This is state-mandated segregation.

I don't have a problem with that, either, if that's what the people who the government serve actually want.

Let's just pretend that instead of women having to go topless, it was black people? And the reason was because society deemed the dark chest as indecent. Would it still be right to have all blacks and only blacks cover up?

If it offended the values of black people, as well as white people, for black people to go topless then there may be a case for stipulating that black people cover their chests. The trouble is that this analogy is loaded - it's loaded because when you talk about black skin being viewed as unacceptable, that notion comes with a whole lot of historical baggage like slavery, apartheid, the perceived inferiority and even worthlessness of the black person, and the massive guilt felt by many white people about that. The notion that women should cover their breasts was not something imposed on them unwillingly by men and the analogy is remote from the issue and valueless.

For you, as I recall, it is not even the breast that are indecent, it is the chest as a whole.

I have no issue with women wearing even skimpy bikinis. I prefer women not to go topless on beaches, but I don't avoid topless beaches any more (although I find I don't need too these days as the topless fad seems to have faded away to a large extent.

Peanut Butter Cookies are made of peanut butter

I have never heard of peanut-butter cookies.

What do you think Girl Scout cookies are made of? Oh those poor Samoan girls!

My eldest daughter (the doctor) is working in a paediatric surgery ward in a South Pacific island's hospital right now, so I guess she'll be able to tell me what Samoan girls are made of when she gets home ;)

Stu

nudetech

04-23-2008, 11:59 AM

<quote>
You may not concede that, but I would.
</Quote>

Really? From what you have posted elsewhere I thought you considered going topless unpleasant, even revolting, but not immoral. I find piercings unpleasant. Some people like them, but a sizable minority would rather not see them. Even if 99% of people objected, that still wouldn't make them immoral, or be cause for them to be banned.

<quote>
I have no problem with any kind of segregation
</quote>

Here we disagree. I am against almost every form of segregation. I am just barely willing to concede changing rooms and male/female sports teams, but hope eventually even that will not be necessary. If only one group shows up, fine, but I don't like exclusion. If no women want to take their tops off, fine, but let it be their decision, not the law's.

<quote>
That's a different issue entirely. I have said consistently that nudists should have decent, accessible beaches with facilities every bit as good as those designated as textile. I would say the same for topless beaches.
</Quote>

But separate but equal never is. That is why it was revoked. So long as there is an imbalance in population or power, the weaker group will loose out. If nothing else they have to travel further on average as a result of having fewer beaches (BTW, I am not applying this to naturism, as that is not segregation based on an immutable trait like race or sex. All naturists are treated equally badly so the debate there is very different).

<quote>
It sounds ridiculous firstly because there is no "decency" issue with regard to black people's chests...
</Quote>

What Bob said.

-chris

nimrod

04-23-2008, 01:27 PM

Boreas

04-23-2008, 02:13 PM

Things evolved because a minority of women quetioned what decent was. If there were no women who decided to remove the leggings of their swimming costume women would still be dressed that way at the beach, the style may change but the total coverage would be the same.

True enough.

A minority of women pushed for the vote.
A minority of women pushed the envelope with regards to employment equity.
A minority of blacks fought slavery.

These minorities became majorities and generally widely accepted.

Bob S.

04-23-2008, 08:14 PM

With the fear that my messages (and Stu's) are getting a bit lengthy, I will try my bets to parse the responses and, if need be, cut in two my replies.

Stu:"The fact that for some reason it is not producing milk at the time does not mean it is not an "organ" any more than a the penis of man who does not produce sperm is not an organ."

The breast in itself is not an organ, the mammary glands are the organ. A court case in Maine made that case. Two women were jogging naked when they were arrested by a police officer driving his beat. The law states The actor knowingly exposes the actor's genitals under circumstances that, in fact, are likely to cause affront or alarm; They merely asked one question to the arresting officer: "Did you see our genitals?" The officer had to admit that he hadn't. They were acquitted.

Stu:"That's your ideological take on this - but it's not mine, Bob, and I don't believe most women would agree with you about that."

Wrong Stu, it is not my ideological take, it is a fact. Women in the past were subjugated. Laws were drawn up to make sure women stayed subjugated. Part of that was keeping women from appearing in public dressed in any way immodest. Look at the Middle East to see some of the ways that women used to be treated in Western Societies. Look at the polygamists from Texas. They are very church-controlled and show it in their dress. They are to dress from head to toe in layers of clothing so as not to make other men lustful. This is how it used to be, the women's dress was meant to keep the man from lusting after her.

Stu:"The trouble is that this analogy is loaded - it's loaded because when you talk about black skin being viewed as unacceptable, that notion comes with a whole lot of historical baggage like slavery, apartheid, the perceived inferiority and even worthlessness of the black person, and the massive guilt felt by many white people about that. The notion that women should cover their breasts was not something imposed on them unwillingly by men and the analogy is remote from the issue and valueless."

Bingo, Stu. nudetech intentionally used that analogy, but women have seen historical baggage such as slavery. Women in marriages were seen as property. Dowries were payments of the groom's family to the bride's family in exchange for the woman/girl. Until fairly recently, it was extremely rare for a woman to have a job other than being a mother to her children and taking care of the domestic duties in her home. If her husband died, she didn't automatically get her husband's affairs. And of course they were seen as inferior to men, and worthless outside of their duties. Men made all the rules back then. They did unwillingly impose their values on women, who were brainwashed by society to believe they actually had it good. A woman today would be completely unwilling to put up with the restrictions that women 100 years ago had to endure.

Stu:"Principles such as equal rights are there to serve the interests of humanity - they are not divine edicts which must be followed slavishly and to the n-th degree!"

Civil and equal rights are not to be served slavishly. Laws are the divine edicts that must be followed slavishly and to the nth degree. Rights are there to assure the laws are acting in the best interest of the people.

Stu:"The woman's breasts play a major role in foreplay activity for most couples."

So do the hands, lips, and skin in general. The butt, in this respect, is just guilty of being too close to the genitals. The breasts have no reason. They are primarily feeding outlets.

Stu:"Some people don't think that I should have any right to enjoy a textile-only beach."

Many times, people have suggested that the prudes make prudish parks. You can also have some prudish beaches with a sign that states that you will find prudes beyond this sign, enter at own risk.

Bob S.

MoonShadow

04-24-2008, 05:44 AM

Endless whirring

BobS, Boreas, Naturist4ever, nimrod, jon71, sanslines, you are to be applauded for attempting to "debate" with Stu. Great posts BobS! However, you will find he will continue to repeat the same "anti-ness mantra" over and over. Your points, all of them, are excellent but notice what he comes back with? He can't comprehend and brings up archaic and stereotypical "reasons" or "arguments". Now he is anti-female, anti-female breasts!

Ra Raaaaaa you guys! :)

Boreas

04-24-2008, 07:00 AM

Thanks MoonShadow, a girl has to try, right? :shrug: or perhaps :cuckoo: (I always wanted to use that smiley!)

I am surprised that Stu is showing such anti-female views these days. I never would have thunk it, given your history Stu.

Stu2630

04-24-2008, 08:06 AM

chris

Really? From what you have posted elsewhere I thought you considered going topless unpleasant, even revolting, but not immoral.I don't find it "immoral", but the authorities in Malta may well do and they are entitled to do so.

I find piercings unpleasant. Some people like them, but a sizable minority would rather not see them. Even if 99% of people objected, that still wouldn't make them immoral, or be cause for them to be banned.I find piercings unsightly, but not offensive. I find all inappropriate public nudity offensive, but female toplessness is on the lower end of the scale (so I avoid nudist beaches but am less concerned with topless ones). It is behaviour which is offensive that I believe should be banned, not merely having an aesthetically displeasing appearance.

I am just barely willing to concede changing rooms and male/female sports teams, but hope eventually even that will not be necessary. If only one group shows up, fine, but I don't like exclusion. If no women want to take their tops off, fine, but let it be their decision, not the law's.Then I don't want to live in your world and you don't want to live in mine. But to do that we have to have segregation, which ever way you look at it.

But separate but equal never is.Not true. Separate changing facilities and toilets for males and females can be "equal" in terms of being of an equal standard. If there is a will on all sides to ensure fair treatment for all, it can be done.

nimrod

Things evolved because a minority of women quetioned what decent was. If there were no women who decided to remove the leggings of their swimming costume women would still be dressed that way at the beach, the style may change but the total coverage would be the same.There is nothing wrong with minorities questioning and challenging. What i object to is when minorities start trying to force everyone else to change their own values, world views and perceptions so that the minorities can do whatever floats their particular boats. That's chauvinism and supremely arrogant because it's telling everyone else that "we're right and you're wrong, you YOU've got to change!"

BobS

The breast in itself is not an organ, the mammary glands are the organ.That's playing semantics. You could argue that you can't see any organ on the human body apart from the skin and the eyes. Female breasts are the container of the mammary glands and the nipple is the access point to the product of those glands. As for the case in Maine - it's always possible to find an aberrant case where a judge is persuaded on a legal technicality by a slick lawyer (usually because either the wrong charge is preferred, or the law concerned is badly worded or because the judge is an idiot). That doesn't affect either the principle or, in most cases, the law itself.

Women in the past were subjugated. Laws were drawn up to make sure women stayed subjugated.Most of the laws we have today are relatively recent products of modern legislatures - they're not relics of ancient times when men had the right to beat their wives and harking back to the days when women were simply chattels doesn't justify tweaking modern laws which are generally approved of by both sexes. We have stacks of laws to protect women from all manner of inequalities these days - yet we retain the laws which say they can't expose their breasts in public. Very few women object to such laws and indeed women are often the ones who seek to ensure such rules are protected.

Rights are there to assure the laws are acting in the best interest of the people.I agree - and who decides what is in the best interests of the people if not the people themselves? We shouldn't elevate lofty theoretical principles of strict equality ahead of what people really want.

So do the hands, lips, and skin in general. The butt, in this respect, is just guilty of being too close to the genitals. The breasts have no reason. They are primarily feeding outlets.Hands and lips are parts of the body which are used for almost everything human beings do, so you can't equate them with breasts. Women choose bras to enhance their breasts; they have breast augmentation surgery and choose clothes which emphasise their breasts. Porn magazines and films make a feature out of breasts in a way they don't tend to focus on necks, elbows or ankles. Female breasts do have a short-lived role in child-feeding for some (not all) women, but to suggest that female breasts have little or no role in sexual activity is not an argument you can possibly sustain.

Many times, people have suggested that the prudes make prudish parks. You can also have some prudish beaches with a sign that states that you will find prudes beyond this sign, enter at own risk.We don't need to. Nudists are the minority - not textiles. People are very happy for there to be segregated nudist beaches but few people actually want to go to these or remain on them (as your own survey shows!). When nudism becomes the pastime of the majority, then you can set aside places for us, but I won't hold my breath!

Boreas

I am surprised that Stu is showing such anti-female views these days. I never would have thunk it, given your history Stu.Would you care to justify that statement by citing one thing I have said which suggests I am "anti-female"? I am married to a female executive who is presently working in the building industry. My eldest daughter has just qualified as a doctor. I am immensely proud of them both. Why would I be "anti-female"? My issues with the "feminists" does not arise from some "anti-female" feeling - it is that these people have become detached from the concerns and desires of real women and are simply pursuing a political agenda of their own for which feminism is just a vehicle.

Also, most females i know agree with my take on the bare breasts issue - it's usually men who disagree with me!!

Stu

Agde

04-24-2008, 08:52 AM

...harking back to the days when women were simply chattels doesn't justify tweaking modern laws...

Hands and lips are parts of the body which are used for almost everything human beings do, so you can't equate them with breasts. Women choose bras to enhance their breasts; they have breast augmentation surgery and choose clothes which emphasise their breasts. Porn magazines and films make a feature out of breasts in a way they don't tend to focus on necks, elbows or ankles. Female breasts do have a short-lived role in child-feeding for some (not all) women, but to suggest that female breasts have little or no role in sexual activity is not an argument you can possibly sustain...

...most females i know agree with my take on the bare breasts issue - it's usually men who disagree with me!!"

So, if I am understanding Stu's argument, we should not seek gender equality because women should already be grateful and sufficiently satisfied that they are no longer chattels, their breasts should meanwhile be covered in deference to the business needs of the porn and plastic surgery industry, any body part that has a role in sexual activity may only be decently uncovered if it has more than one other non-sexual use that is not short-lived, and the views of men who no longer support the subjugation of women and who don't consider every woman the object of lust should be discounted as irrelevant. :dizzy:

MoonShadow

04-24-2008, 09:17 AM

Yes, quite right, Agde, according to Stu, you know.

"Very few women object to such laws and indeed women are often the ones who seek to ensure such rules are protected"

Well, Stu, you are not the only one who is a prude. There are prudish women too!

"feminists" does not arise from some "anti-female" feeling - it is that these people have become detached from the concerns and desires of real women and are simply pursuing a political agenda of their own for which feminism is just a vehicle"

Real women are feminists, Stu. A real woman can't be any other way.

What your spouse and daughter do does not mean you are not anti-female. From many of your postings in this forum, you so indicate you are.

Agde

04-24-2008, 09:52 AM

Real women are feminists...
(Parenthetically, in anticipation of the counter-attack, there are actually three main types of "feminists" -- pro-equality, anti-male and women-are-better. Clearly, MoonShadow is referring to the first. The male equivalents would be pro-quality, anti-female and men-are-better. The intersection is clear. "Tradition" is with the latter two on the male side. We are objecting to the anti- and -better on both sides.)

Stu2630

04-24-2008, 10:10 AM

Agde

So, if I am understanding Stu's argument, we should not seek gender equality because women should already be grateful and sufficiently satisfied that they are no longer chattels,

No. We should not seek gender equality because we pretty much have it already and the pendulum has already swung so far in women's favour that nowadays it tends to be men who are disadvantaged.

their breasts should meanwhile be covered in deference to the business needs of the porn and plastic surgery industry,

Their breasts should be covered in most public places because that is what most people - both male and female - want and expect. If womankind as a whole -(and not just some unholy alliance of extreme feminists plus radical nudists) call for the right to go topless in public then fine. Until then, we should leave things as they are and the law should continue to reflect public sensibilities.

any body part that has a role in sexual activity may only be decently uncovered if it has more than one other non-sexual use that is not short-lived,

For very many women, their breasts are nothing more than appendages to attract and stimulate male sexuality - they will never be used to feed an infant. For most women, the total amount of time their breasts will be used for infant feeding will amount to no more than a period of months out of their whole lives. Other than for breastfeeding, the only purpose of breasts for a woman is sexual - be it as part of their sexual identity, sexual attraction or for foreplay in sexual activity.

and the views of men who no longer support the subjugation of women and who don't consider every woman the object of lust should be discounted as irrelevant. :dizzy:

I don't support the subjugation of women and I don't know any men in my life who do. I don't consider that every woman should be the object of lust and I don't know any men in my life who do. So where you have got that notion from is anybody's guess.

Just because someone share your views on the biological or cultural role of the female breast in humankind doesn't mean either that they seek the subjugation or objectification of women.

Stu

Agde

04-24-2008, 02:53 PM

We should not seek gender equality because we pretty much have it already...
It's of course the "pretty much" we have trouble with -- 642 pretty much equals 643 but you'll still flunk your math quiz!

For very many women, their breasts are nothing more than appendages to attract and stimulate male sexuality - they will never be used to feed an infant. For most women, the total amount of time their breasts will be used for infant feeding will amount to no more than a period of months out of their whole lives. Other than for breastfeeding, the only purpose of breasts for a woman is sexual - be it as part of their sexual identity, sexual attraction or for foreplay in sexual activity.
This is just plain insulting to everybody -- appendages whose only purpose is sexual? Men who can't tell a blink from a wink, or a breast from foreplay? This is almost disturbing enough to distribute as a general purpose way to discredit anti-nudity ordinances.

I don't support the subjugation of women...
Assuming breasts are "appendages to attract and stimulate male sexuality" objectifies them, condemning an entire class of individuals in advance to legal restrictions on the basis of an unavoidable physical trait without reference to behavior. Call it what you want. Your expressed purpose is to prevent women from exploiting your lustful association of breasts with sex. Thanks, but its not just naturists who don't need that kind of protection via crass gender discrimination. We prefer protection from your view of women.

nimrod

04-24-2008, 04:51 PM

nimrod

There is nothing wrong with minorities questioning and challenging. What i object to is when minorities start trying to force everyone else to change their own values, world views and perceptions so that the minorities can do whatever floats their particular boats. That's chauvinism and supremely arrogant because it's telling everyone else that "we're right and you're wrong, you YOU've got to change!"

Stu

The attitude of we are right and you are wrong will come about when one group subjugates, and segregates another, and rightly so. Should Tiebet give up because China is the majority? Should the blacks have stopped fighting for equal rights because they are a minority? Just because a minority of women want to be topfree, they should give in to majority rules no matter how unfair and unjust that decision is.

Boreas

04-24-2008, 06:31 PM

Boreas

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I am surprised that Stu is showing such anti-female views these days. I never would have thunk it, given your history Stu. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Would you care to justify that statement by citing one thing I have said which suggests I am "anti-female"? I am married to a female executive who is presently working in the building industry. My eldest daughter has just qualified as a doctor. I am immensely proud of them both. Why would I be "anti-female"? My issues with the "feminists" does not arise from some "anti-female" feeling - it is that these people have become detached from the concerns and desires of real women and are simply pursuing a political agenda of their own for which feminism is just a vehicle.

Also, most females i know agree with my take on the bare breasts issue - it's usually men who disagree with me!!

First, I am female and disagree with your take on bare breasts. What does that say about me?

The posters, including and perhaps especially MoonShadow, who have responded to your post have pretty much said what I could say.

I would further support the comments that "feminists" and "real women" are not separate entities. I am both. I do not consider myself better than men. I do not hate men. I want more than "pretty much" equal. As Agde has said, it is close but no cigar. You still fail the math test.

My hackles also always go up when I hear that men are at a disadvantaged, especially when those words are coming from a white male. I recognize that when my hackles go up, my ears might close. Consequently, if you are going to convince me, you will need to find a better way to argue that point.

I think we are about the same age. I know you lived your first few years as a female. I also believe you lived long enough as a female to have experienced discrimination merely because of your female status. I can remember the first time I was conscious of being discriminated against merely because I was a girl. I was ten. I would have expected you to have a better understanding of what it was like to be female.

Sanslines

04-25-2008, 05:07 AM

I am surprised that Stu is showing such anti-female views these days. I never would have thunk it, given your history Stu.

Don't look at me.......I am still in the kitchen baking brownies.

Boreas

04-25-2008, 08:17 AM

Don't look at me.......I am still in the kitchen baking brownies.

Really? :surprised: Who knew???? :sneaky:

Good on you. Are you going to share????

Sanslines

04-25-2008, 10:03 AM

Really? :surprised: Who knew???? :sneaky:

Good on you. Are you going to share????

Stu knew but believes that it is beneath man's dignity to lower himself to work in the kitchen. As Stu will remind us over and over again, it is much better for men to relegate women to the kitchen all in the name of man protecting a woman's dignity and virtue. Man must also reserve time to discuss the important issues of the day and does not have time to waste in the kitchen.

Bob S.

04-26-2008, 07:56 PM

Stu:"Most of the laws we have today are relatively recent products of modern legislatures - they're not relics of ancient times when men had the right to beat their wives and harking back to the days when women were simply chattels"

Laws of today were built on laws of yesteryear. They have merely been updated due to societal changes. Female modesty has always been regulated in the past. It is still that way today. The breasts are forbidden now because they always have been, even back in the "ancient times" you spoke of.

Stu:"I agree - and who decides what is in the best interests of the people if not the people themselves?"

Of course the people should decide for themselves what is in their best interest, but there is more to it than that. Civil and equal rights are there to protect the minorities or those who have been treated as such. Without the civil and equal rights of those groups, the majority would decide who gets the rights and the minorities would have little say.

In the US, the court system has been vital in assuring minorities are not being unfairly treated even if the majority are averse to the decisions. The best interest of the people should not lie in laws made way back when a group was subjugated. They should be updated.

Stu:"Very few women object to such laws and indeed women are often the ones who seek to ensure such rules are protected."

The fact that someone objects to a law that has been around for millenia simply means that it has become so ingrained into the minds of the people that it becomes rare for anyone to oppose it. But just because something is illegal, or for that matter, legal, does not mean that it is right or wrong. Slavery was once legal. But it was not right. The double standard for women's modesty will also fall because there is no reason that one can provide for it being right.

Bob S.

Boreas

04-27-2008, 08:37 AM

Stu:"Very few women object to such laws and indeed women are often the ones who seek to ensure such rules are protected."

The fact that someone objects to a law that has been around for millenia simply means that it has become so ingrained into the minds of the people that it becomes rare for anyone to oppose it. But just because something is illegal, or for that matter, legal, does not mean that it is right or wrong. Slavery was once legal. But it was not right. The double standard for women's modesty will also fall because there is no reason that one can provide for it being right.

Good point.

I would add that women do not oppose it sometimes, just because it is not important enough, or because they have other things to think about. Also that double modesty that informs women's lives helps to keep us "in our place". It is a powerful force.

We have finally gotten some warm weather here. Yesterday while on a walk, I saw two men enjoying the sunshine on their front porch topfree. I thought that must be nice.....and who knows I may sit topfree on my deck yet. If I were to have joined them, I would have felt subject to male leers and possibly female leers. I realize on some level I appear to be agreeing with Stu. It is merely a superficial agreement. I also believe that those female sneers would be manageable.

jon71

04-27-2008, 01:44 PM

I want to add that I am male and VERY MUCH a feminist. I have a young daughter that I am very proud of. She should have all the same legal rights and freedoms as any man whether that means becoming president of the United States or going topless on a beach. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for having one set of laws for men and another set for women. The fact that it has "always" been done that way historically means nothing. Until 1860 we had always practiced slavery but thank GOD some people realized that wasn't a good enough reason to keep going like that. Some traditions may be fine and dandy but a lot of them belong on the trash heap of history and treating women (and their breasts) differently is high on that list.

Sanslines

04-27-2008, 03:35 PM

Good point.

I would add that women do not oppose it sometimes, just because it is not important enough, or because they have other things to think about. Also that double modesty that informs women's lives helps to keep us "in our place". It is a powerful force.

We have finally gotten some warm weather here. Yesterday while on a walk, I saw two men enjoying the sunshine on their front porch topfree. I thought that must be nice.....and who knows I may sit topfree on my deck yet. If I were to have joined them, I would have felt subject to male leers and possibly female leers. I realize on some level I appear to be agreeing with Stu. It is merely a superficial agreement. I also believe that those female sneers would be manageable.

Boreas,

If someone sneers at you, regardless of whether male or female, retaliate by giving them dirty looks and mean scowls. That should scare them off! If that doesn't work, then just plain moon em!

Boreas

04-27-2008, 04:28 PM

Boreas,

If someone sneers at you, regardless of whether male or female, retaliate by giving them dirty looks and mean scowls. That should scare them off! If that doesn't work, then just plain moon em!

Yes, I know. I am working on that attitude. It is one of those things that I can do easily in many situations.

I'll keep you posted on my progress. Old "training" is hard to break!

Bob S.

04-27-2008, 07:22 PM

Boreas:"I would add that women do not oppose it sometimes, just because it is not important enough, or because they have other things to think about."

Acknowledged.

Boreas:"If I were to have joined them, I would have felt subject to male leers and possibly female leers. I realize on some level I appear to be agreeing with Stu. It is merely a superficial agreement."

Of course you would have been subject to it. Female toplessness is not acceptable and it is not so because it is illegal in most places and is rarely practiced where it is legal due to both ignorance of the law and not enough women willing to doff their shirts. And why not? Because the society finds it unacceptable. This is a vicious circle.

Bob S.

Sanslines

04-28-2008, 05:16 AM

Of course you would have been subject to it. Female toplessness is not acceptable and it is not so because it is illegal in most places and is rarely practiced where it is legal due to both ignorance of the law and not enough women willing to doff their shirts. And why not? Because the society finds it unacceptable. This is a vicious circle.

Bob S.

The interesting thing about female toplessness is that there is absolutely nothing in the US Constitution which specifically prohibits or allows it. Therefore, the Supreme Court would have to base their decisions on other circumstances to rule one way or another. As is usually the case, laws are based upon and reflect the values and beliefs of what is supposed to be the majority of people at the time. However, just because laws are supposed to represent the majority of the people, does not automatically make those laws fair, just, or legal when put to other legal tests. Laws are constantly challenged, revised, rewritten, and thrown out altogether based upon a wide variety of challenges and tests.

Specifically concerning greater acceptance of nudism in society, laws can and will be created that will support and protect nudism once one major event happens. This event is to properly inform and educate society on a massive scale as to what nudism is all about and to dispell the many myths that exist cocerning nudism. One the populace changes their opinions concerning nudism, then laws will be created to reflect those changing opinions. Nudists should settle for nothing less.