A manifesto regarding pubic nudity

[Gary Naturist]

[Manifesto: a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.]

We nudists are almost always in the position of reacting to new laws regarding public nudity. Maybe we should start being proactive.

For example, we could develop a manifesto regarding public nudity which would define both people's right to be nude in public and the ccommunity's ability to limit unacceptable behavior. In addition, the manifesto would distinguish between nudity and sexual activity.

The basic idea would be to come up with something that both nudist and non-nudists worlds could accept.

The manifesto could be offered as a model for use by communities looking to be proactive on the topic, and as an altenative in negotiating with other communities that have bad laws and administrative practices in place.

I'm sure that members of the INA forums could put something together that would advance our cause but still be acceptable, at least in the more enlightened communities.

Question is: do we have people willing to participate in such a project?

Idea: Maybe INA would be willing to sponsor and/or organize this project.

Your thoughts?

Gary

Note: Manifesto is perhaps not the perfect word here, but it's the best that I've been able to think of up to now.

[Gary Naturist]

[Manifesto: a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.]

We nudists are almost always in the position of reacting to new laws regarding public nudity. Maybe we should start being proactive.

For example, we could develop a manifesto regarding public nudity which would define both people's right to be nude in public and the ccommunity's ability to limit unacceptable behavior. In addition, the manifesto would distinguish between nudity and sexual activity.

The basic idea would be to come up with something that both nudist and non-nudists worlds could accept.

The manifesto could be offered as a model for use by communities looking to be proactive on the topic, and as an altenative in negotiating with other communities that have bad laws and administrative practices in place.

I'm sure that members of the INA forums could put something together that would advance our cause but still be acceptable, at least in the more enlightened communities.

Question is: do we have people willing to participate in such a project?

Idea: Maybe INA would be willing to sponsor and/or organize this project.

Your thoughts?

Gary

Note: Manifesto is perhaps not the perfect word here, but it's the best that I've been able to think of up to now.

[Rik]

Gary

You need a "stake in the ground" manifesto (or whatever. What about "charter"?) to demonstrate the sort of things you would expect to see. Perhaps then as a first stage the contributors here could throw in ideas without getting bogged down in debate. This approach should leave you with a number of possible inclusions some of which will be no-brainers and some of which will be highly contentious. My guess is that the "highly contentious" will remain so and will probably not be settled by debate so you'll need someone to "own" the manifesto to make the final decision as to what goes in.

So here's a couple of points from me:

- the manifesto/charter would need a clear objective to ensure that it doesn't just become a naturist's rant. You'd need to be clear exactly why you need a manifesto and who it's audience is expected to be.

- need to define what we mean by nudity e.g. the exposure of any part of the human body in a non-sexual manner.

- need to define what is meant by "public"

- need to use proactive (but not agressive) language e.g. Nudists view the naked body as the natural state. Non-nudists subscribe to a lifestyle which incorporates the covering of genitals at all times when in public.

- I struggle a bit with "the community's ability to limit unacceptable behavior" which implies that simple nudity might be unacceptable and thus should be controlled by some sort of enforceable recourse. It might be easier to define what is acceptable and anything else isn't simple nudity so the community can do what they like with it because it's of no concern to nudists or their manifesto.

- I think it's important that the manifesto/charter implies that just as in any other non-sexual and non-agressive public behaviour that individual nudists define for themselves what is and isn't acceptable. We know this approach works in many countries!

- the manifesto/charter should be general enough to apply internationally - at least to western cultures (I think!)

- it should have no religious overtones/connotations. This will ensure its inclusivity.

Well there's just a few things of the top of my head. As I said I don't think they should be debated at this stage but rather thrown into a pot of ideas.

Rik

[brainyguy9999]

Just some suggestions...

I think the idea of a general charter or manifesto is a good one.

I suggest that it might have two general sections:

Section 1: A summary or overview of the general attitudes, goals, and vision of naturism or nudism as a movement. This doesn't need to be a one-page synposis, it could go on for however long it takes to cover the relevant points of naturism/nudism.

Section 2: A detailed section that is laid out much like law code is. They are organized into sections and subsections that deal with different aspects of the major divisions. This, although arranged in a very organized way, would by no means be a pit of legalese. It should simply be a way to quickly address questions posed by anyone wanting to know the 'official' answer to how nudists view "X".

I'm too brain-dead right now to think about it much more, but I'll give it some thought over the next few days and post again.

bg

[BrianM]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
[Manifesto: a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This sounds like a great idea, but I am ignorant as to how this meshes in with current laws. Would it apply to areas that have no written law or precedent, such as some national parks, etc, or would it be to offer exclusion from law, as some have done with religious association? If the other side must agree on it, I doubt that it would be accepted, mainly because of the numbers of them verses us....they would have no reason to listen. Other political stances, such as was done with minority civil rights in the 60's wouldn't work either, again because there is not enough of a minority to be listened to. But something of the sort mentioned as a "manifesto" would be a more politically correct postion and after the education that "nude is not lewd" is completed, then this may work for some communities.

[Rik]

Brian

Such a manifesto could clearly not be a legally binding document but merely a coherent statement of the naturists' stance on public nudity. I suppose it could become, or inlcude, a sort of "code of conduct" to which nudists would voluntarily adhere rather than a set of rules which must be obeyed. Such conduct would presumably include operating within the legal bounds of the state or country you live in.

Rik

Rik,

I agree.

Stu

[Rik]

Stu,

Yeah, we'd be OK in the UK. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
[Manifesto: a public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.]

We nudists are almost always in the position of reacting to new laws regarding public nudity. Maybe we should start being proactive.

For example, we could develop a manifesto regarding public nudity which would define both people's right to be nude in public and the ccommunity's ability to limit unacceptable behavior. In addition, the manifesto would distinguish between nudity and sexual activity.

The basic idea would be to come up with something that both nudist and non-nudists worlds could accept.

The manifesto could be offered as a model for use by communities looking to be proactive on the topic, and as an altenative in negotiating with other communities that have bad laws and administrative practices in place.

I'm sure that members of the INA forums could put something together that would advance our cause but still be acceptable, at least in the more enlightened communities.

Question is: do we have people willing to participate in such a project?

Idea: Maybe INA would be willing to sponsor and/or organize this project.

Your thoughts?

Gary

Note: Manifesto is perhaps not the perfect word here, but it's the best that I've been able to think of up to now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Gary Naturist]

What I'm suggesting is a framwework that the authorities could work from when drafting laws, bylaws, administrative practices, etc. Not the legal wording (except for some specific suggestions), but a layman's description of how the whole nudity isse can be resolved between nudists and the community.

Gary

Gary,

"What I'm suggesting is a framwework that the authorities could work from when drafting laws, bylaws, administrative practices, etc. Not the legal wording (except for some specific suggestions), but a layman's description of how the whole nudity isse can be resolved between nudists and the community."

I totally agree. That would be extremely useful and a positive step, but there would have to be a great deal of consultation first with the communities (and, dare I say it, some empirical research). Your first obstacle would be to generate sufficient interest in your cause among these "authorities". That wouldn't be an easy thing to do because naturists don't have a great deal of political clout. If you were do this then the price you would have to pay would be that there could be no more "pushing the envelope", because naturists would have been part of the process.

But the idea is good. I like it!

Stu (hijacking the debate as usual!)

[brainyguy9999]

I believe that it could be a useful framework to present to lawmakers when a pending law may affect nudists. This manifesto (perhaps Constitution would be a better, less negative-sounding name?) could be given to lawmakers as an outline of what nudists see as acceptable and what is not acceptable so the lawmaker can add provisions for nudists.

Also, it could be sent to various lawmakers at various times as an educational tool or as a precursor to a meeting about nudist issues. Most lawmakers like to know what they are talking about before they go into a meeting. If they can study up on an issue and understand various concerns and limits, then they may be more open to dialogue. If they don't have that understanding of what nudism is about, then they likely will have misconceptions and go into the meeting believing that nudists want to have open sex on the streets.

Although this is an old thread, I am still interested in a common document that can be used both as an educational tool and potentially as a basic guideline for nudist organizations to adhere to.

I will work on it as time allows, but if anyone has any thoughts about a framework to model after, please post a link to a document that is in that format for review.

Stay nude.

bg

[Kouak]

I struggle a bit with "the community's ability to limit unacceptable behavior" which implies that simple nudity might be unacceptable and thus should be controlled by some sort of enforceable recourse. It might be easier to define what is acceptable and anything else isn't simple nudity so the community can do what they like with it because it's of no concern to nudists or their manifesto.

I think that this is a good idea too. I have seen many good "What is nudism" explanations out on the web.

I think your questioning about what the community can limit brings up a good point. If a section on this is included, it should refer to nudism directly and only nudism. An explanation may be in order. I suggest that it does not include text about "sexual activities," or similar text. The reason is nudism is not about sexual activities. Therefore there is no reason to mention the community's ability to limit nudism to not include sexual activities.

The community can limit sexual activities but should pass laws limiting these activities without regard to nudism. This means there is no need to mention them in your manifesto.

[NudeAl]

Just a suggestion as to the name of the document why not A Nudist Bill of Rights.

I agree something along these lines is long over due however given the current political climate I doubt anyone is willing to put much effort into this. I hope I am wrong and someone at a nation level will at least consider this.

[Naturist Mark]

My humble contribution:

Since this is to be a common list of principals to be used by various groups and communities may I suggest a catchy name? ... ... (wait for it) ... ... The Common Nudist Manifesto

[inudist]

I do like this idea of having a coherent document of what nudists stand for whatever it is called. I like the term "A nudist philosophy".

Nudists however, are very disorganized and have many different agenda's going on here. I guess we first need to agree on what to call it and that seems like a tall task. Hopefully one day everyone will prove me wrong here.

[nimrod]

Nudists however, are very disorganized and have many different agenda's going on here.

I think that is the biggest problem, there is a very wide spectrum of what nudity is allowable within the nudist comunity. Some closet nudist, and those that do not even consider themselves nudist believe that it should be kept at home, to the anywhere at anytime weather permitting.

[brainyguy9999]

Well, we could start with the things that a large majority agree with and work our way down from that.

#1) Nudists believe that there is nothing inherently lewd about the nude human body.

I think a vast majority of nudists could agree on that point. Those that don't, in my opinion, aren't nudists.

If you can think of other statements of "fact" that you believe a majority of nudists/naturists would agree on, post them here and I'll see how to add them to the document. Please try to keep the statements concise and related to a single point. A paragraph of explanation would be more difficult to parse and would be much easier for some to find disagreement within, especially when dissecting the grammar into various meanings.

Also, I want the document to focus on what nudism IS and stay away from trying to describe what nudism IS NOT. The IS NOT list would become unmanageable very quickly and would only muddy the water.

I would hope that the document would serve as a description of the core values and beliefs of nudists. As you move away from that core, certainly many nudists will have their own variations and beliefs. I hope to start with the true core values and move out from there.

I've started the document with a section of definitions. Those, so far, are:

************************************************

Nudist : A person who prefers to be nude.

Naturist : A nudist who prefers to be nude as a way of connecting to nature, or who finds natural surroundings preferable to man-made surroundings.

Clothes-free: The state of being without clothing, or nude.

nude : The state of being without clothing, especially by choice and having an artistic or positive connotation.

naked : The state of being without clothing, especially due to force or having a lewd connotation.

Topfree : Usually applied to women who are without clothing covering their upper torso, especially their breasts. This term is preferred by many who want to distinguish topfree from topless, as the latter term is usually associated with the sex industry or indicates the lack of something, whereas topfree indicates a choice toward freedom.

Topless : The state of having no clothing covering the chest, and especially a woman's breasts. This term has a negative connotation because of its association with the sex industry and because of the connotation of lacking something that is necessary. A term with a negative connotation in the nudist environment that indicates the lack of clothing covering the upper torso, especially the breasts of women. The preferable term for nudists or Topfreedom advocates is "topfree".

Topfreedom : A movement that believes that women's breasts are no more offensive than men's breasts and that women should have the same right to be topfree wherever men do.

Landed Club : A nudist club that owns real property.

Non-Landed Club : A nudist club that does not own real property. They typically meet at landed clubs, resorts, beaches, members' houses, or at rented facilities.

Travel Club : An outdated term that has been replaced by "Non-landed Club".

Nudist Resort : A business that operates on owned or leased land that has the specific purpose of providing an environment for nudists to practice social nudity in a controlled, secure, and typically well-maintained area.

Nudist Colony : An outdated term that is only used by persons ignorant of modern nudism. The term was typically applied to gatherings of nudists or used in fiction writings for titillation.

Clothing-optional : A specification that denotes that the wearing of clothing is optional. This term is used to describe whether a facility is "Clothing-optional" or "Nudist". Whereas a "Nudist Resort" (or "Nude Resort") deems that wearing of clothing is strictly forbidden except under strict circumstances, a "Clothing-Optional Resort" leaves the choice to the attendee.

************************************************

If there are other terms that are related to nudism that you believe would help a lawmaker, friend, employer, or judge understand nudism better, please post them.


Stay nude.

bg

[barenaked1]

Interesting that it took over 6 years for this to come back up

[brainyguy9999]

I've been busy... :)


Actually, there is a local nudist who was recently charged with indecent exposure at a known skinny-dipping site in this area. Several people have discussed the best way to explain to the authorities what nudism is all about and why his skinny-dipping shouldn't be considered indecent exposure. We thought that a written explanation might help the judge understand the difference. I remembered this thread about a Nudist Manifesto and went searching for it in the hopes that something had materialized. I didn't realize that it had been so long (time flies) ago, but it seems that no one has done anything with it. I thought I might as well try to do something... And that, is the rest of the story...

:)

Stay nude!

bg

[JoseO42]

I definitely like the idea of putting something like this together. It should be written as a way to help others understand what nudism is and is not about. It helps to define terms and explain what nudists are hoping to achieve with regards to being allowed to be nude in public settings.

[enertronik]

A couple things I thought of while reading this, sure hope most of us can agree with the first one ::anxious:

Nudists are accepting of all humans, regardless of body type, race, gender, or other defining term.

Nudist resorts are intended to provide safe and friendly places to enjoy recreational nudity, often in a family environment.

Overt sexual behaviour in a nudist setting is frowned upon and generally strictly forbidden.

Nudists associate social nudity with freedom of choice, rather than sexual purposes.

[Stu2630]

You want a manifesto for the rights of nudists to be facilitated in enjoying your lifestyle by protection from discrimination, more and better opportunities and venues and so on.

A general manifesto on the right of people to be nude in public will not be acceptable to many non-nudists, whether the nudity is sexual or not.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Whirring away! As usual....

[bobk]

You want a manifesto for the rights of nudists to be facilitated in enjoying your lifestyle by protection from discrimination, more and better opportunities and venues and so on.

A general manifesto on the right of people to be nude in public will not be acceptable to many non-nudists, whether the nudity is sexual or not.

Stu

I agree completely with this comment. Nudists must recognize that the general public is intolerant of the sight of a nude body, for whatever reasons. We, as nudists, must respect that and make it clear that we do respect those who do not want to have anything to do with the nudist lifestyle.

What we want is freedom from prosecution and hassle for being nude in an appropriate place.

In Alberta there are two landed clubs. Both require that new attendees be interviewed prior to attending. There are no nude beaches in the province.

Nude recreational opportunities are what we need, which would create opportunities for those who have always wanted to try nudism but are reluctant due to the negative image.

There are precious few recreational lakes in Alberta, but if every one of them had a nude beach there would be greater acceptance of the lifestyle. However, those nude beaches require official sanction by communities/counties, and the police would have to change to where they would accept, and protect, those venues for the enjoyment of nudists.

The manifesto should be directed toward the publicly elected bodies that are in charge of public land use and recreational activities in general.

Those elected bodies are also, generally, in charge of the policing activities, and can define specifically what the police can consider an event which requires their intervention. Indecent exposure laws should be repealed or ignored because they are too often misapplied. The overt behavior that specifically threatens another person in a physical way is what the police should be concerned about. The elected bodies can also instruct law enforcement personnel regarding the type of protection that is to be provided to facilities used by nudists.

The manifesto should be clear that nudists believe in their right to free association. It should not ask, or seem in any way apologetic. At the same time, it should be respectful.

Nude recreation associations have, obviously, not been very successful in promoting acceptance of nudism, but their support should be encouraged.

[steve-o]

I know this thread was started 6.5 years ago, but I'm wondering if the spelling of the thread title should be corrected at some point. Spelling and correct syntax matters. Especially if it's about writing something of importance.

It should be "public" not "pubic" nudity. (A manifesto regarding pubic nudity)

I'm just sayin' ...

--steve

[nimrod]

Nudists must recognize that the general public is intolerant of the sight of a nude body, for whatever reasons. We, as nudists, must respect that and make it clear that we do respect those who do not want to have anything to do with the nudist lifestyle.

I do recognize that the general public is intolerant of nudity, and I respect those that want nothing to do with nudity, but in turn I want the general public to recognize that I want to be nude and respect me in my decision to be nude, but that is lacking because of the intolerance of those people.

What we want is freedom from prosecution and hassle for being nude in an appropriate place.

The question is who detetmines what is an appropriate place. There are some that believe that the only appropriate place is in the bathroom for showering and maybe the bedroom when changing clothes. Do we let them decide for us what place is appropriate? Or do we let the other extreem decide?

[FoUTASportscaster]

Agreed. I hate equating this to the civil rights struggle, as there are differences, but 50 years ago, the sight of a black person sitting at the front of bus or sharing a restroom with whites was intolerant to the average person in public. Blacks had to respect that and make it clear that they respect those who do not want to have anything to do with the equal rights.

If violence can be so accepted, then there is no reason nudity can not. As MLK had shown, making people aware of the issue is the only way to change behavior, not respect those like Stu. It will never change unless those that advocate it work to change it.

The same can be applied to women, gays, disabled or any other group of people discriminated against.

[Bob S.]

Stu: "You want a manifesto for the rights of nudists to be facilitated in enjoying your lifestyle by protection from discrimination, more and better opportunities and venues and so on."

That's the best place to start. We need to have realistic dreams and ultimate dreams. I would first go for the realistic dreams of protection from discrimination, better and more numerous beaches and parks, removal of the indecent exposure for simple nudity, more normal nudity allowed on TV, etc. Getting these will lead to our ultimate dreams.

Bob S.

[barenaked1]

Agreed. I hate equating this to the civil rights struggle, as there are differences, but 50 years ago, the sight of a black person sitting at the front of bus or sharing a restroom with whites was intolerant to the average person in public. Blacks had to respect that and make it clear that they respect those who do not want to have anything to do with the equal rights.

If violence can be so accepted, then there is no reason nudity can not. As MLK had shown, making people aware of the issue is the only way to change behavior, not respect those like Stu. It will never change unless those that advocate it work to change it.

The same can be applied to women, gays, disabled or any other group of people discriminated against.

Stu has proven that he is an exception to the cause. His purpose has been to disrupt and spin to his own liking. Once again, why he is here? His continued and ongoing rhetoric becomes a big yawn.

[bobk]

An appropriate place is, in my opinion, a landed nudist club, a house, a back yard, a nudist beach, a nude swim event, a nude badminton game in a school gym, a nude bowling night, etc., all of which would be properly signed to indicate that a nudist event was taking place. If gawkers are mortified, after taking their eyefull, they should have no reason to complain to anyone, and, if they do, the response should be, 'Why did you go out of your way to look?'

If you want to drive your car nude, go for it. Most people will think you are driving topless, ladies-strapless. But to walk into a convenience store nude will be uncomfortable for the staff and customers because, remember, we are a very small minority. I really do think that a nudist would be as uncomfortable in that circumstance as the staff and customers, and he/she would prop with false bravado, which is obvious to everyone, and which harms the cause.

The manifesto (or whatever you want to call it) is a good idea because it becomes a more or less universal document of nudist rights that can be taken forward to elected and bureaucratic officials, throughout America, and elsewhere as needed, who have the power to provide nudist facilities. Once there are more nudist facilities, the acceptance of nudity becomes more widespread, and soon no one is wearing but the clothing required by the climate and the circumstances. Dream on. However, if a start is not made, nothing will happen, and we will just continue complaining.

I will put effort behind any Alberta initiative, if anyone is interested.

[Stu2630]

BobS

I would first go for the realistic dreams of protection from discrimination, better and more numerous beaches and parks,

I don't believe many people would objecvt to that. I wouldn't.

removal of the indecent exposure for simple nudity,

That has happened in the UK, but simple nudity can still be dealt with under public order and nuisance laws. They are not going to change that in the UK, or here in Sweden, any time soon.

more normal nudity allowed on TV, etc.

After the watershed and with due warning, I have no problem with that. Remember that most non-nudists are, by definition, people who feel that nudity should remain in the private domain subject to some very specific and limited objections. It's our world, too.

Stu

[Sanman]

Has anyone ever studied this course? "Nudity with Impunity" http://www.olli.calpoly.edu/FA08/courses_dec.html#OSHR

[FoUTASportscaster]

Remember that most non-nudists are, by definition, people who feel that nudity should remain in the private domain subject to some very specific and limited objections.

Not really. Non-nudist are simply people who don't do it. I know many non-nudists who support nudity rights.

[missouriboy]

A suggestion for that list of definitions...

An entry somewhere should clarify that nudity is a state, not a behavior.

The object of this point is to relieve the tedium of qualifying legal descriptions in laws that criminalize certain behaviors. It should establish the legal point that just being nude is never a violation of any law against a specific behavior (simply because being nude is not a behavior).

Therefore, lawmakers would still be free to write anti-behavioral laws about things like lewdness, indecent exposure, etc., with the understanding that they just wouldn't apply to the simple state of nudity.

[richinud]

Here you go, one simple naked manifesto:

http://www.naktiv.net/manifesto.html

Rich.

[enertronik]

Here you go, one simple naked manifesto:

http://www.naktiv.net/manifesto.html

Rich.

I think that sounds like exactly what we are looking for. Simple, to the point, honest, and non-judgemental. It doesn't force anything, just states that our activities shouldn't be criminal, and people should have choices. I like it.

[brainyguy9999]

Okay. I've gotten off of my duff and started a website to contain this information.

I couldn't decide on a name, so both links below go to the same place. Once one seems better than the other, I'll let the loser expire.

http://www.NudistConstitution.com
http://www.NudistManifesto.com

It is definitely in a rough form at this moment. I've mainly just put down ideas so I can start somewhere. It will be reorganized and redesigned as time goes along. However, I wanted to get it out there so people could start making suggestions. Please make suggestions here or by following the instructions on the website.


Stay nude!

bg

[brainyguy9999]

In putting together the nudistconstitution.com website, I included a "definitions" section. I included Textile with the following definition:

"A term typically used to describe non-nudists. It can also be applied to a location, such as a beach, to describe that it is a clothing-mandatory area."

My question is: Is the term "Textile" offensive? Should it be labeled as such?

For myself, I see it as just a simple term that is easier to say in conversation than saying "non-nudist" all the time. Textile is easier to say than non-nudist.

Thoughts?

Stay nude!

bg

[David77]

Please make suggestions here or by following the instructions on the website.

bg

OK, you asked for it so here are my suggestions.

1). Eliminate the entire section entitles "Purpose", as it is unnecessary.
2). The topical headings of Health, Acceptance/ Body Image, and Safety should be in large, bold letters.
3). In the section entitled "Things that Nudists Believe", the entire number 5 entry in this section should be eliminated.
4). I find that the intended color coordination is too garish.
5). I find that the entire web page sounds too pedantic, as it sounds similar to a text book with no conversational tone included. Also, maybe a few lighthearted and/or sunny pics or illustrations would help to lighten it up.
6). If you could condense the wording to be more succinct, it would help.

I hope that you do not take offence at these suggestion. I admire your webpage and agree 100 % with the essence or meaning of your statements surrounding Naturism/Nudism. I wish you the very best in this your great adventure.

[brainyguy9999]

Thanks for the suggestions. I have changed the page color scheme. I haven't had time to do anything else with the content yet due to long work hours. But I will take your comments (and any others) into consideration when I get back to editing it.

Thanks again.

Stay nude!

bg

[Stu2630]

brainyguy9999

The beauty of a democracy is that you can campaign for whatever you want. You are free to campaign for the prohibition of beards, or to make growing a beard compulsory. You can campaign for all trains to be painted pink or for all dogs to be called Nigel. Because we live in a democracy, or at least most of us on here do, we are allowed to have a say in what kind of society will live in. I really don't believe most people in developed nations don't want to live in the kind of society you want to impose on the rest of us. I do not want to live in your kind of society and I would do whatever was necessary to protect my right not to have to do so.

I do not think I need worry, though, because I believe you will never garner anywhere near the support with the world's movers and shakers that you would need to make your Utopian dream become reality. Unfortunately, I think you will damage the interests of more reasonable nudists by pursuing this line because non-nudists will suspect that all nudists are working behind the scenes to inflict their vision on to the rest of us. What you are suggesting is a kind of radicalism which is not dissimilar to the fundamentalist beliefs of the Taliban and Al Qaida - and we all know the harm they have done to the reputation of moderate Islam.

Nudists have a strong case for better treatment from the world at large. You should be demanding respect for your chosen lifestyle and more opportunities to pursue it. You should be demanding an end to discrimination and a fair share of public spaces. These are legitimate demands and you will, eventually, gain public sympathy and politicians etc will be forced to listen. If you start making ridiculous demands like the right to be naked anywhere you like, you will be marginalized as a bunch of hippy nutjobs. And you will deserve it.

Stu

[MeBNude]

you will be marginalized as a bunch of hippy nutjobs. And you will deserve it. (emphasis added) Stu

Stu, there are moments that I agree with you and then you go make blind, absolutist, demeaning remarks like the above that reflect nothing other than a blind adherence to your rigid notion of reality and what reality "should" be.

You've got your opinions, I've got mine. Vive la difference!!! I've had some of my best social and political debates with intelligent people who were very socially and politically conservative. But they were 1) intelligent; 2) open minded enough and 3) confident enough in their position that they would listen to my position and respect it enough to try and educate me with facts, not opinions, as to why my position was wrong. It was enlightening and refreshing.

It is comments like the one I quoted above and emphasized that makes participation in certain areas of this forum unpleasant for me. But I also suspect that even when you know that people find your absolutist comments unpleasant, it won't make a difference to you. However, that is only my opinion and if I'm wrong, I'd be glad to know it.

[northlondoner]

If there was an organisation that represented and also campaigned for nudity (beaches, clubs, saunas, swims) then there would be no need for a separate nude manifesto. There isn't one at least in the UK. A few more nude beaches and (for the cold) saunas where all are welcome would be a start.

[David77]

I don't consider the word "textile", when referring to non-nudist, to be offensive.
However, it is essential that you explain what you mean by using the word "textile", or you would not be communicating with the other person.

In putting together the nudistconstitution.com website, I included a "definitions" section. I included Textile with the following definition:

"A term typically used to describe non-nudists. It can also be applied to a location, such as a beach, to describe that it is a clothing-mandatory area."

My question is: Is the term "Textile" offensive? Should it be labeled as such?

For myself, I see it as just a simple term that is easier to say in conversation than saying "non-nudist" all the time. Textile is easier to say than non-nudist.

Thoughts?

Stay nude!

bg

[Stu2630]

MeBNude

You have taken what I said out of context by missing off the most important bit. I said:

If you start making ridiculous demands like the right to be naked anywhere you like, you will be marginalized as a bunch of hippy nutjobs. And you will deserve it. (emphasis added)

I can respect an opinion, even one with which i profoundly disagree, but there is a difference between holding an opinion and seeking to force the world to change around you to make it fit your opinion.

A manifesto demanding a recognized right to public nudity is one which has, at its core an attempt by a tiny to over-ride public sensibilities and desires to keep nudity in the private domain. The attitude is one of "we don't care what you want, all that matters is that you change to accommodate what we want".

My other point was that making such a demand is likely to do more harm than good to the interests of nudism in the same way that the Taliban has harmed the interests of moderate Islam by tarnishing its reputation.

So, the manifesto is not only wholly unreasonable in its demands; it is unrealistic, and it could ultimately harm the reputation and interests of the people here. Nudists would be wise to distance themselves from it.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu: "You should be demanding respect for your chosen lifestyle and more opportunities to pursue it. You should be demanding an end to discrimination and a fair share of public spaces. These are legitimate demands and you will, eventually, gain public sympathy and politicians etc will be forced to listen. If you start making ridiculous demands like the right to be naked anywhere you like, you will be marginalized as a bunch of hippy nutjobs. And you will deserve it."

We are demanding respect. We bend over backwards to get it and it hasn't gotten us very far.

However, trying to convince the greater society to do more than just allow us to keep our beaches and resorts is not enough. Winning the battle will mean we have to win over the minds of the majority. In order to do that, we must be able to project our beliefs in a rational way.

Keep in mind that every nude beach was won by making demands on the society that we get this one place and for the officials to look the other way and, in fact, sanction their behaviour. That isn't much different than asking for other areas. Enough "one places" and you can reach a tipping point. Court cases also help. If the rational arguments can be presented in the right way to the right judges, more can be won by nudists.

Bob S.

[Sanman]

The beauty of a democracy is that you can campaign for whatever you want. You are free to campaign for the prohibition of beards, or to make growing a beard compulsory. You can campaign for all trains to be painted pink or for all dogs to be called Nigel. Because we live in a democracy, or at least most of us on here do, we are allowed to have a say in what kind of society will live in. I really don't believe most people in developed nations don't want to live in the kind of society you want to impose on the rest of us. I do not want to live in your kind of society and I would do whatever was necessary to protect my right not to have to do so.

Stu

Rather, the HORROR of a democracy... Where 51% of the people can strip 49% of the people of whatever life liberty and property they choose. How terrible it would be for the majority to force others to, in your example, grow a beard or other such farse. I'd much rather live in a republic where the rule of law protects all sorts of minorities from the whims of the majority.

[David77]

Rather, the HORROR of a democracy... Where 51% of the people can strip 49% of the people of whatever life liberty and property they choose. How terrible it would be for the majority to force others to, in your example, grow a beard or other such farse. I'd much rather live in a republic where the rule of law protects all sorts of minorities from the whims of the majority.

As they say, "The tyranny of the majority".

[Stu2630]

Bob

We are demanding respect. We bend over backwards to get it and it hasn't gotten us very far.

Bob - you DO get respect! OK, I accept you get poorly treated in some places, especially in the US, but here in Europe, nudists are generally held in high regard and allocated plenty of opportunities to enjoy their lifestyle. You need to be persuading the backward US states to follow their more progressive neighbours, or look to Europe, but making extreme demands really isn't going to "win you the minds of the majority", or get you the respect you deserve.

I completely agree that you must project your beliefs in a rational way, and you are already doing that and winning victories! I would hate nudists to damage their public image and marr their progress by allowing extremism to creep in to their thinking.

Keep in mind that every nude beach was won by making demands on the society that we get this one place and for the officials to look the other way and, in fact, sanction their behaviour.

What ever way you win new beaches is irrelevant - the fact is that you win them. But you can win by presenting a moderate face to the authorities and asking for you to be considered with fairness. In the UK, nudists recently campaigned against the closure to nudists of a beach called Corton Sands, because the beach has eroded. The beach will be closed to nudists, but the authorities have agreed to find another beach for nudists close by and that is acceptable to them. That sort of thing is great news. It proves you are not being ignored or marginalised - you are being listened to! Now go and win some more victorieslike that! ;)

That isn't much different than asking for other areas. Enough "one places" and you can reach a tipping point. Court cases also help. If the rational arguments can be presented in the right way to the right judges, more can be won by nudists.

It depends what you are asking for, Bob. Neither the courts nor politicians are going to outrage public opinion and, by making unreasonable demands, nudists risk alienating public goodwill and they justify being ignored.

Sanman

Rather, the HORROR of a democracy... Where 51% of the people can strip 49% of the people of whatever life liberty and property they choose... I'd much rather live in a republic where the rule of law protects all sorts of minorities from the whims of the majority.

Your premise is faulty on many levels. Firstly, your notion of a "republic" simply confers more powers onto an even smaller minority, namely the judiciary. You think judges (an exclusive club of middle-class professionals) should decide what rules ordinary people live by rather than the people who have to live by those laws. Secondly, you seem to assume that the majority of your fellow countrymen are so stupid, selfish and narrow-minded that they will completely disregard the interests of minorities. That might have been the case in uneducated societies such as in medieval times, but I don't think they are nowadays. Indeed, if people were so ignorant, surely they shouldn't even be allowed to vote!

Bear in mind that the countries which have the most democratic systems, like Spain, Denmark, Germany etc, are the most tolerant of nudism. How tolerant of nudism is, say, Arkansas?

Stu

[David77]

I have been thinking about the question, "Is it ethical to make laws merely because there are some (majority) of people who are OFFENDED". but rather it is ethical to be tolerant of the "offence" unless it affects "life and limb".

To use one of Stu's examples of offence, I agree that a law is justified against persons defecating (pooping) on the street - but not because it is offensive emotionally, but because it is unhygenic, the germs being a hazard to persons health, as well as a person could break a limb if inadvertantly slipping.

This is the philosophy of tolerance of the "live and let live" so long as it does not endanger life and limb. Nudity is in this category, as it hurts no one's life or limb in going nude in public, so ethically no law should be made against this practice.

[Kouak]

I have been thinking about the question, "Is it ethical to make laws merely because there are some (majority) of people who are OFFENDED". but rather is it ethical to be tolerant of the "offence" unless it affect "life and limb".

To use one of Stu's examples of offence, I agree that a law is justified against persons deficating (pooping) on the street - but not because it is offensive emotionally, but because it is unhygenic, the germs being a hazard to persons health, as well as a person could break a limb if inadvertantly slipping.

This is the philosophy of tolerance in the "live and let live" so long as it does not endanger life and limb. Nudity is in this category, as it hurts no one's life or limb in going nude in public, so ethically no law should be made against this practice.

I like and agree with your thoughts. However I will add "and property" to your list: life, limb, and property. The problem is when people attempt to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. This causes laws to be passed whose only motive is to force us to believe in what they do. Welcome to America where this is the norm.

[David77]

I like and agree with your thoughts. However I will add "and property" to your list: life, limb, and property.

Kouak,
OK, I think I'll buy that, if it is modified to "life, limb and reasonable possessions".

[Bob S.]

Stu: "What ever way you win new beaches is irrelevant - the fact is that you win them."

So then you would agree that a group of people should go naked at their preferred beach? Good. This is, in fact, how nudist beaches start. A group of people just go naked. They don't ask for permission, they just do it. This is why the nude beaches are more often off the beaten path.

Stu: "Neither the courts nor politicians are going to outrage public opinion"

The nature of the court system is going to mean they are going to outrage public opinion at times. Sometimes, the legislature will make laws that are popular, but in some way unconstitutional or in Europe against the Human Rights regulations. It happens a lot. With an unrestrained legislature, what is to stop minorities from being discriminated if the majority wants that discrimination?

Stu: "Secondly, you seem to assume that the majority of your fellow countrymen are so stupid, selfish and narrow-minded that they will completely disregard the interests of minorities."

They do. We have talked about it a lot here. Laws were created in the US that legalized slavery and then, after it was made unconstitutional, laws were consistently made to keep the blacks as second class citizens.

It took the civil rights movement to overturn the discriminatory laws, usually in court cases.It was so harsh that the Governor in Arkansas banished nine young black children from entering the previously all-white school. The National Guard was called in to assure they could simply go to school.

Every country has a history of disregarding the interests of the minorities in its borders. In the US, it has usually taken court cases to force the citizenry to accept a certain way. Remember, the courts in this way are here for the minorities to assure they are being treated fairly.

David: "This is the philosophy of tolerance of the "live and let live" so long as it does not endanger life and limb. Nudity is in this category, as it hurts no one's life or limb in going nude in public, so ethically no law should be made against this practice."

Exactly. The only reason for banning nudity in public is that it has always been that way and it offends the sensibilities of people. There are many other behaviours and ways of dress that fit into that definition that are legal. If pressed, no one can give a reasonable excuse to keep the ban going other than offense caused by seeing it.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

David77

To use one of Stu's examples of offence, I agree that a law is justified against persons defecating (pooping) on the street - but not because it is offensive emotionally, but because it is unhygenic, the germs being a hazard to persons health, as well as a person could break a limb if inadvertantly slipping.

What about someone "pooping" into a newspaper in a shopping mall? So long as they dispose of the result appropriately, there is no health hazard nor any risk of anyone slipping. So would that be OK, then? I would argue that it would not be OK because it violates the generally accepted standards of behaviour that we can expect from others in public places.

BobS

So then you would agree that a group of people should go naked at their preferred beach? Good. This is, in fact, how nudist beaches start. A group of people just go naked. They don't ask for permission, they just do it. This is why the nude beaches are more often off the beaten path.

Yes - but of course there has to be some negotiation and give-and-take with the rest of the community.

With an unrestrained legislature, what is to stop minorities from being discriminated if the majority wants that discrimination?

The basic fairness and sense of justice of the majority stops that from happening. The most liberal and tolerant countries in the world today are also the most democratic. I live in one such country and, here in Sweden, minority groups are always listened to, considered and catered for to a huge extent. I know - I am a member of such a minority.

Laws were created in the US that legalized slavery

That is always a problem where you enfranchise a completely uneducated and socially ignorant populace, especially where that populace is religiously indoctrinated, then you will not get fairness for minorities. You have mentioned slavery and I can mention that the same situation pertains in Iran today. However, if you have a largely well-educated and informed populace, and you entrust them with the vote, you have to trust them to be fair-minded.

The alternative to democratic rule is rule by some kind of "elite" - and there is absolutely no principled argument in favour of that.

Every country has a history of disregarding the interests of the minorities in its borders.

Every country has a history of repression of the people - period! In the case of developed nations, public education has meant we have moved beyond that, and that is why everyone has a vote.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu: "The basic fairness and sense of justice of the majority stops that from happening."

No it doesn't Stu. Basic fairness and sense of justice has in the past led to discriminatory policies. It still does. Usually, it takes a court ruling to get discriminatory policies to fall. The problem is that some issues may seem like discrimination to one group, but not another. Topfreedom is one of those. I and others here see it as discrimination that women are not allowed to go topless wherever men can. You do not see it as discrimination. Yet this discriminatory policy continues in many places. Basic fairness and a sense of justice has not stopped the majority from continuing this discrimination.

Stu: "However, if you have a largely well-educated and informed populace, and you entrust them with the vote, you have to trust them to be fair-minded."

Read the above statement. That is not always the case. You yourself have stated that reactions are not always totally logical, so the rationale for some policies may not always be rational. Case in point, you have mentioned that reaction to nudity is not logical. Therefore, all laws outlawing public nudity are not based on logic but on irrational reactions. The laws still exist even with the well-educated and informed populace, although how well-informed they are is up in the air.

Stu: "What about someone "pooping" into a newspaper in a shopping mall? So long as they dispose of the result appropriately, there is no health hazard nor any risk of anyone slipping."

There is still a health hazard The stench can cause some people to become ill. Not to mention the liquid may still permeate the paper. http://www.dogmall.co.uk/smile/sick/sick0020.gif

Bob

[Sanman]

...Your premise is faulty on many levels. Firstly, your notion of a "republic" simply confers more powers onto an even smaller minority, namely the judiciary. You think judges (an exclusive club of middle-class professionals) should decide what rules ordinary people live by rather than the people who have to live by those laws.
My premise is not faulty, but in fact well proven throughout history. I also wonder whether you know the meaning of "republic" in the first place. The primary purpose of the constitution in the USA is to limit the power of government. Unfortunately, the USA is no longer a republic and the constitution has been trampled on so much that about the only thing left in it that hasn't been violated is the part about the right not have to house soldiers in our homes.

Secondly, you seem to assume that the majority of your fellow countrymen are so stupid, selfish and narrow-minded that they will completely disregard the interests of minorities. That might have been the case in uneducated societies such as in medieval times, but I don't think they are nowadays. Indeed, if people were so ignorant, surely they shouldn't even be allowed to vote!

<and from another of your posts...>
That is always a problem where you enfranchise a completely uneducated and socially ignorant populace, especially where that populace is religiously indoctrinated, then you will not get fairness for minorities. You have mentioned slavery and I can mention that the same situation pertains in Iran today. However, if you have a largely well-educated and informed populace, and you entrust them with the vote, you have to trust them to be fair-minded.<end of the other post>


So which is it Stu? Surely you see the double-speak here? Is the general populace stupid or not? Whichever way happens to support your argument at the time?


Bear in mind that the countries which have the most democratic systems, like Spain, Denmark, Germany etc, are the most tolerant of nudism. How tolerant of nudism is, say, Arkansas?

Stu
Democratic or not is irrelevant to your argument. The "most democratic" who are also most tolerant of nudism just happen to have greater than 50% of the populace tolerant to it. I'd rather see a republic system that guarantees the rights of people will not be violated by the government making laws against things that are essentially harmless, even though some may be offended. A major concept people everywhere really need to get a grip on is that no one has the right to go through life an never be offended by something.

[Stu2630]

BobS

Usually, it takes a court ruling to get discriminatory policies to fall. The problem is that some issues may seem like discrimination to one group, but not another. Topfreedom is one of those. I and others here see it as discrimination that women are not allowed to go topless wherever men can.

You are talking from a US perspective. The vast majority of non-discriminatory laws in the UK and Scandinavia have come from legislation, not court rulings. As for permitting toplessness, I don't regard it as discriminatory that women can't go topless in certain places for reasons which I have expounded here many times.

You yourself have stated that reactions are not always totally logical, so the rationale for some policies may not always be rational. Case in point, you have mentioned that reaction to nudity is not logical. Therefore, all laws outlawing public nudity are not based on logic but on irrational reactions.

Who said that laws have to be based on pure logic? Of course they don't - and they shouldn't be. They should take into account the pre-existing cultural values of the people who have to abide by them. Laws take people as they are, not how some theoretical logistician thinks they should be.

There is still a health hazard The stench can cause some people to become ill.

Aversion to the smell of poop can be unlearned, Bob. The question is whether we want to unlearn it or not. I don't want to live in a society which is enslaved by the dictats of pure logic, but one that takes account of prevailing cultural norms. I don't want to see the "F" word, or images of erect penises emblazoned on billboards. I don't want to have to listen to people shouting obscenities when I take my kids to the local museum or shopping mall. And I don't want to live in a society which permits people to expose their genitalia in public.

Sanman

A "republic" is simply a country which the political leaders do not inherit the job because of accident of birth, but are, in some way, put there by the people. France, Germany and Russia are republics, as are Iran, Syria and Pakistan. Look up "republic" in any dictionary or encyclopaedia and you will see that my definition is far closer than the one you have formulated.

So which is it Stu? Surely you see the double-speak here? Is the general populace stupid or not? Whichever way happens to support your argument at the time?

The ONLY legitimate government of any country is one that has a mandate to govern from the people they govern. Democracy is, however, little more than a sham if the people are unaware of what the government believes in, is doing in their name, and are aware of possible alternatives. There is little excuse in denying democracy to any people, no amtter how ill-informed or ill-educated (as we have seen in some African states) but there is ZERO excuse for denying full democracy to an educated and ill-informed populace. How ever you dress it up, the only alternative to the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of some elite minority and, personally, I would rather trust to the common sense and instincts for fairness of the majority.

Stu

[David77]

BobS
You are talking from a US perspective. The vast majority of non-discriminatory laws in the UK and Scandinavia have come from legislation, not court rulings.

We have legislative laws against discrimination, too. Race, religion, the elderly, disabled, etc.

You certaily know that the courts in the US are mandated to go by the laws that are made by the legislators. In the absence of legislative laws, the courts, by necessity, can follow case law (and these laws can eminate from other states). Many of the case laws originally come from England, when we were English colonies.

Sometimes these old laws are modified, and follow "the spirit of the law".
For instance, the old law we inherited from England states that everyone is responsible for controlling his horse. In time, we added that everone is responsible for controlling his motor vehicle.

I commend England for outlawing slavery much before the USA did. It was the English slave hunters who captured slaves and brought them to this land. I now admire the UK tremendously and enjoyed visiting.

I believe that Stu's prevailing feelings of multitudinous offences are not typical, but that there is more tolerance shown than that.

[Bob S.]

Stu: "As for permitting toplessness, I don't regard it as discriminatory that women can't go topless in certain places for reasons which I have expounded here many times."

Exactly. And in that case, the majority have not shown "basic fairness {or a} sense of justice" in that regard. Therefore, I cannot trust the majority to show that to minorities. The same with nude beaches, I cannot trust the majoriy to show nudists any kind of basic fairness nor any sense of justice as they have yet to do so. This is why judges in our representative democracy are so vital.

Legislators do not always make good decisions when it comes to writing laws. If they are only beholden to the majority, what is to stop them from just dismissing all minority interests? In the US, it is the court system. How about in the UK or Sweden? How do they protect the minority interest?

Stu: "Who said that laws have to be based on pure logic? Of course they don't - and they shouldn't be. They should take into account the pre-existing cultural values of the people who have to abide by them. Laws take people as they are, not how some theoretical logistician thinks they should be."

Laws should be based on actual offense, not perceived offense. Hurt feelings or emotions are a poor platform for basing laws upon. That is what discrimination basically is, making separate sets of rules or laws for two equal groups and allowing the members of one group to do something that the members of another group cannot do.

Stu "Aversion to the smell of poop can be unlearned, Bob."

As I said, Stu, scents can cause people to become physically ill or worse. I have literally stopped breathing for about 10 very long seconds after breathing in some paint fumes. Some people may become physically ill at the smell of feces to the point they vomit or get a migraine headache.

Sights never do that (except for staring at the sun) and anyone who does get sick needs to get some help for that as it is psychological.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Bob

And in that case, the majority have not shown "basic fairness {or a} sense of justice" in that regard. Therefore, I cannot trust the majority to show that to minorities.

That's according to YOUR definition of fairness, Bob, not mine and not that of the British people. I would also doubt that the majority of British or Swedish judges would follow your concept of fairness, either.

The same with nude beaches, I cannot trust the majoriy to show nudists any kind of basic fairness nor any sense of justice as they have yet to do so. This is why judges in our representative democracy are so vital.

All your judges are doing is making judgments according to law. The only difference is that in your country, you have two levels of law - ordinary law and your Constitution - both made by politicians.

Legislators do not always make good decisions when it comes to writing laws. If they are only beholden to the majority, what is to stop them from just dismissing all minority interests? In the US, it is the court system. How about in the UK or Sweden? How do they protect the minority interest?

In the UK, minority interests are looked after by the bicameral Parliament, pretty much as they are in Sweden. It works in both countries, where minority interests are very well protected. Sometimes, too well protected!

Laws should be based on actual offense, not perceived offense. Hurt feelings or emotions are a poor platform for basing laws upon.

The experience of being offended is a mental effect - a perception, so there is no difference between actual and perceived offence. Behaviour that is likely to cause serious offence is, rightly, prohibited in public places, so that as many people as possible can enjoy those places.

That is what discrimination basically is, making separate sets of rules or laws for two equal groups and allowing the members of one group to do something that the members of another group cannot do.

People are placed into different groups because there are material differences between them. It's why we have play areas just for children. It's why we have men's and women's segregated changing facilities. It's why men have to wear shirts and ties in some jobs and women don't. We always have the option to adjust or even abandon such norms and restrictions, but that should only occur if the people affected want it. I do not believe that the majority of women want the rigt to go topless, nor do they want other women to have that right.

On the point of "minority rights", while they should be considered, that does not mean they should always be accommodated. There is a minority of people who want the right to have sex in public, or to buy heroin or other drugs legally. Minority rights are not absolute - they must be weighed against the greater public good. I don't want to live in a society which permits either public nudity or female toplessness, and I have rights, too.

As I said, Stu, scents can cause people to become physically ill or worse. I have literally stopped breathing for about 10 very long seconds after breathing in some paint fumes. Some people may become physically ill at the smell of feces to the point they vomit or get a migraine headache.

Bob, the smell issue regarding faeces just doesn't cut it. You get a far stronger whiff of the odour in the confined area of a public toilet than you would in an open area such as a street or even a shopping mall. People find it objectionable mainly because of the sight of it. There are many things people don't want to have to see in public, so they are protected from those sights. We don't display dead bodies in public. We don't slaughter chickens in public, or conduct autopsies or medical operations in public. We don't tolerate people masturbating in public, even if they are doing so under their clothing! Private places are not the same as public ones and, in the case of the latter, the people who have to use these places should determine what they find acceptable, and what they don't. The judges should take such feelings and sensibilities into account when considering "minority interests".

Stu

[Bob S.]

Stu: "That's according to YOUR definition of fairness, Bob"

Definitions of fairness change over the years. women lacking the power to vote was not seen as discrimination until suffrage. Just because society allows a behaviour to continue does not mean it is not discriminatory. It just means that is is legalized discrimination.

Stu: "In the UK, minority interests are looked after by the bicameral Parliament, pretty much as they are in Sweden. It works in both countries, where minority interests are very well protected. Sometimes, too well protected!"

Not well enough if they do not allow women to go topless wherever men do or give naturists and others who would want to attend them proportionately equal beaches. I know that sometimes, one group can have their interests so protected that it discriminates against the other group, but again, that just means the balance needs to be adjusted.

Stu: "People are placed into different groups because there are material differences between them."

Yes. Men and women are placed into two separate but equal groups. We have separate but equal bathrooms, but not separate but equal dress codes. Fairness is fairness no matter how many people don't care about it. Was slavery fine when it was acceptable? Was denying women the right to vote right when it was acceptable? Was denying women their own job right when it was accepted that they only work at home as a wife an mother? Is it right for women not to be able to drive in Saudi Arabia?

The concept of equality never changes, the excuses that societies use to deny it to a group does.

Stu: "The experience of being offended is a mental effect - a perception, so there is no difference between actual and perceived offence."

Exactly, it is a mental effect. An actual offense is one that affects someone in a physical way, not just a mental way.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS

Definitions of fairness change over the years. women lacking the power to vote was not seen as discrimination until suffrage. Just because society allows a behaviour to continue does not mean it is not discriminatory. It just means that is is legalized discrimination.

I don't have a problem with discrimination per se. In fact, it is sometimes desirable. I don't want to see women required to wear a collar and tie to work in a bank or male nurses having to wear dresses. If a particular form of discrimination is generally favoured by clear majorities in all the groups concerned, and causes no significant harm, then it should remain. The overarching purpose if anti-discrimination laws is to make society better and the people who inhabit it happier - they are not an end in themselves.

Not well enough if they do not allow women to go topless wherever men do

That's because the state of "toplessness" is not the same for men as it is for women. A man does not have "breasts" as a woman does - indeed, his whole upper body shape and appearance is different to that of a woman. When it comes to physiological matters, men and women should be treated differently because they are different.

We have separate but equal bathrooms, but not separate but equal dress codes.

The dress codes for men and women are radically different in all kinds of respects, not just concerning nudity. You have states in the US where it is a crime for a man to wear a dress, but I don't see you protesting the unfairness of that. How many men would be allowed to go to work wearing high-heel shoes? Or lipstick and false eyelashes? Or a short skirt and pantihose?

Was denying women the right to vote right when it was acceptable? Was denying women their own job right when it was accepted that they only work at home as a wife an mother? Is it right for women not to be able to drive in Saudi Arabia?

I don't see the relevance of saying what is and is not "acceptable" as it applies to other cultures or periods in history - we can only judge what is acceptable in our own era and within our own culture. It's up to the Saudis whether they allow women to drive in their country, and if the women there think that the prohibition is wrong, ity's up to them to voice that, not for westerners to dictate how they should regulate their society. How would we like it is the Saudis told us we shouldn't allow our women to drive in the west?

Exactly, it is a mental effect. An actual offense is one that affects someone in a physical way, not just a mental way.

Causing offence almost never affects anyone in a "physical way" - it is a purely mental response. A billboard showing an image of a man masturbating won't cause anyone to have a heart attack, but it will sure as heck cause a lot of mental anguish.

Stu

[Agde]

I don't have a problem with discrimination per se. In fact, it is sometimes desirable. I don't want to see women required to wear a collar and tie to work in a bank or male nurses having to wear dresses. If a particular form of discrimination is generally favoured by clear majorities in all the groups concerned, and causes no significant harm, then it should remain...
Wow! This whole response is just such concentrated upside-down bullying sexist thinking, it takes your breath away!

[Stu2630]

Agde

This whole response is just such concentrated, domineering, upside-down sexist thinking, it takes your breath away!

No, it's just a radical departure from the shallow, ill-conceived doctrinaire ideological bunk which the populations of modern western cultures have been force-fed, and have swallowed, for the past couple of decades.

Stu

[Agde]

No, it's just a radical departure from the shallow, ill-conceived doctrinaire ideological bunk which the populations of modern western cultures have been force-fed, and have swallowed, for the past couple of decades.
In general, I appreciate your being around to forcefully argue "the other side" -- I just suspect you overshot the mark a bit this time. :) Male nurses wearing dresses, men in lipstick, high heels, false eyelashes and pantyhose, men's breasts look different than women's, masturbation billboards...? What topic are we discussing again? The purpose of anti-discrimination law isn't to make people happier or to enforce dress codes. It certainly does not attempt to minimize the inconvenience or mental stress for prejudiced discriminators. It is to right wrongs, and often wrongs to which prevailing custom and "clear majorities" are firmly opposed.

[Lord Drakkus]

No, it's just a radical departure from the shallow, ill-conceived doctrinaire ideological bunk which the populations of modern western cultures have been force-fed, and have swallowed, for the past couple of decades.

Okay, wait a minute... Just to be clear here; You are saying that tolerance of the actions and beliefs of others, even when those beliefs/actions do no actual harm, is bad?

[Bob S.]

Stu: "The dress codes for men and women are radically different in all kinds of respects, not just concerning nudity. You have states in the US where it is a crime for a man to wear a dress, but I don't see you protesting the unfairness of that. How many men would be allowed to go to work wearing high-heel shoes? Or lipstick and false eyelashes? Or a short skirt and pantihose?"

Dress codes for anything are ridiculous. I don't believe any state in the US has any law that states men can't wear women's clothes or vice versa. If they did, a simple court case based on the First Amendment should be all it takes. If there is any law that states that, let it be known that I vehemently oppose it just like I vehemelty opposed Virginia trying to make illegal low riding jeans that showed the underwear. I believe a town if Florida has made that a law and I find it moronic.

Dress codes for employees of businesses are another story altogether. The businesses have the right to say how its employees can appear while on the clock as they represent the company. If a company requres all its employees, including women, to wear a suit and tie, then that is what they must do. The same with everyone wearing dresses. I am just glad the company I worked for didn't require me to follow all of the dress codes listed. One of them was that all employees must wear a bra. :eek:

Stu: "If a particular form of discrimination is generally favoured by clear majorities in all the groups concerned, and causes no significant harm, then it should remain. The overarching purpose if anti-discrimination laws is to make society better and the people who inhabit it happier - they are not an end in themselves."

All discrimination causes harm. As discrimination is a form of injustice, Martin Luther King Jr was right when he said Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Discrimination is never good. Period. A society that makes itself better by denying equality is a sick society.

Bob S.

[MeBNude]

In general, I appreciate your being around to forcefully argue "the other side"

Stu, I agree with Agde here. And the last time I took umbrage at the way you presented your ideas, I was far less eloquent than he was. But, his comment reminded me of some very wise words I heard regarding differing opinions that I wanted to share.

I don't quote movies often. But I remembered the speech enough to use Google and find the exact text of which I was thinking:

…America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”.

The American President, from Wikipedia. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_American_President)

[Sanman]

That's because the state of "toplessness" is not the same for men as it is for women. A man does not have "breasts" as a woman does - indeed, his whole upper body shape and appearance is different to that of a woman. When it comes to physiological matters, men and women should be treated differently because they are different.

In general it is true most women's breasts look different than mens, but I'm sure you know that with a quick google search, I could show you pictures of men and women where the men's breasts are actually larger than the women's breasts. So, by your argument, should flat-chested women be allowed to go topless while the guys with man-boobs be required to cover up? According to your argument, the reason for the discrimination is due to them looking different. But as I have demonstrated, it truely still boils down to purely gender discrimination, and therefore all laws enforcing this discrimination should be thrown out.

[Yogi Bare]

Stu: That's according to YOUR definition of fairness, Bob, not mine and not that of the British people. I would also doubt that the majority of British or Swedish judges would follow your concept of fairness, either.


What is YOUR definition of fairness? Is something only fair if it agrees with your line of thinking?


Stu: That's because the state of "toplessness" is not the same for men as it is for women. A man does not have "breasts" as a woman does - indeed, his whole upper body shape and appearance is different to that of a woman.


So what if women typically have larger breasts than men? A breast is a breast, no matter the size. I've seen some men that have larger breasts than some women. By your reasoning, it would seem that you would be in favor of those men having to cover their breasts because it appears that the sight of a bare breast larger than that of a typical man is the reason that you are offended and, therefore, qualifies to be kept hidden.


Stu:The overarching purpose if anti-discrimination laws is to make society better and the people who inhabit it happier - they are not an end in themselves.


I believe that the nudism population (who are part of the inhabitants of society) would be happier and would feel that society would be made better if the laws currently discriminating toward them would be repealed.

[nimrod]

If men do not have breasts, then how do they get breast cancer?

[Stu2630]

Agde

The purpose of anti-discrimination law isn't to make people happierUltimately, all laws exist to maximise the level of happiness in society. The alternative to that is that human happiness is subordinate to cold principles.

It is to right wrongs, and often wrongs to which prevailing custom and "clear majorities" are firmly opposed.Prevailing customs can be changed by majority will. "Clear majorities", especially in educated societies, must always have their will respected. The alternative to that is decision-making by minorities.

Lord Drakkus

You are saying that tolerance of the actions and beliefs of others, even when those beliefs/actions do no actual harm, is bad?That depends on how you define "harm". I would include behaviour which assaults public values and sensibilities or whichy changes the public environment in a way that they don't want it changing.

BobS

I don't believe any state in the US has any law that states men can't wear women's clothes or vice versa.I understand that some towns and cities prevent this, one being Haddon, New Jersey. My point was that nudists here are not protesting about other laws which treat men and women differently. There are laws in the US and the UK which treat the sexes differently. In the UK, just try to get fairness if you are a divorced man with children!

All discrimination causes harm. As discrimination is a form of injustice, Martin Luther King Jr was right when he said Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Discrimination is never good. Period. A society that makes itself better by denying equality is a sick society.I disagree. Non-discrimination should be a general principle, not an absolute and inflexible edict, and indeed that is how it is viewed in most legal systems.

Sanman

Men's pectoral areas are not really "breasts", as they are in the female sense. They consist chiefly of musculature and fatty deposits rather than true breast tissue. they also do not generally function as breasts in that they do not produce infant milk. They are also not generally associated with sex, whereas women's breasts are. So, they are physiologically different, they have a different function, they look different, and they are viewed from an an entirely different cultural perspective. Men's chests and women's breasts - it's comparing apples and oranges.

Yogi Bare

What is YOUR definition of fairness? Is something only fair if it agrees with your line of thinking?Nope - I think fairness in this case means asking what women want, as they are the ones facing the restriction. In my experience, it is women who are the most vociferous in opposing female public toplessness.

So what if women typically have larger breasts than men? A breast is a breast, no matter the size.It's not just a question of size. See my response to Sanman.

I believe that the nudism population (who are part of the inhabitants of society) would be happier and would feel that society would be made better if the laws currently discriminating toward them would be repealed.I don't believe nudists are discriminated against when it comes to not being allowed to be naked in public. It's not just nudists who can't be naked in public - the same rule applies to everyone. Nudists are free to use ANY public place on the same terms as the rest of us.

Nudists are treated unfairly when it comes to the allocation of public spaces they can use. Nudists don't get their fair share and that is wrong.

Nimrod

If men do not have breasts, then how do they get breast cancer?

Men have a very small amount of vestigial and largely inactive breast tissue in their chests - that doesn't make them breasts. I have a small amount of vestigial ovarian tissue in my abdomen - that doesn't mean I have ovaries.

Stu

[David77]

Milkmen: Fathers who Breastfeed
Secod video on the page;

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/miscarticles/milkmen.html

[Lord Drakkus]

That depends on how you define "harm". I would include behaviour which assaults public values and sensibilities or whichy changes the public environment in a way that they don't want it changing.


From Merriam-Websters Dictionary:

Main Entry: ¹harm <input onclick="return au('harm0001', 'harm');" class="au" title="Listen to the pronunciation of 1harm" type="button">
Pronunciation: \ˈhärm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hearm; akin to Old High German harm injury, Old Church Slavic sramŭ shame
Date: before 12th century
1 : physical or mental damage : injury (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/injury)
2 : mischief (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mischief), hurt (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurt)




Oxford Dictionary:


harm


• noun 1 physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted. 2 material damage. 3 actual or potential ill effect.
• verb 1 physically injure. 2 have an adverse effect on.
— PHRASES out of harm’s way in a safe place.
— ORIGIN Old English.



Apparently, this isn't a question of sanity, it's a question of locale. The oxford dictionary deals most with the UK, and is rarely used here in the US. The US is the domain of Websters Dictionary.


Either way, I'm done with you. Anybody who advocates discrimination of any type is definitely not the type of person that I want to associate with. Especially when they spend years deliberately offending others with their bigotry.

[Sanman]

Sanman

Men's pectoral areas are not really "breasts", as they are in the female sense. They consist chiefly of musculature and fatty deposits rather than true breast tissue. they also do not generally function as breasts in that they do not produce infant milk. They are also not generally associated with sex, whereas women's breasts are. So, they are physiologically different, they have a different function, they look different, and they are viewed from an an entirely different cultural perspective. Men's chests and women's breasts - it's comparing apples and oranges.
As other's have already proved you wrong that they are physiologically different, the only true thing you said here is that they are viewed differently from a cultural perspective. Why? And, the "culture" is NOT universal in all parts of the world. You have simply been conditioned since childhood into believing that breasts (and genitals) are "obsceen" or "gross" or whatever else you want to call it. We have every right to try to change culture. When you say we shouldn't try to change culture, why not? And why should we leave culture shaping up to the snooty fashion designers, magazine editors, and hollywood movie makers instead of the common folk?

Men have a very small amount of vestigial and largely inactive breast tissue in their chests - that doesn't make them breasts. I have a small amount of vestigial ovarian tissue in my abdomen - that doesn't mean I have ovaries.

Stu

A few hormone injections would change all that. Then where would you be? A man with true to form and actual breasts... but since he's a man, would you say it's ok for him to be shirtless in public?

[Kouak]

Men's pectoral areas are not really "breasts", as they are in the female sense. They consist chiefly of musculature and fatty deposits rather than true breast tissue. they also do not generally function as breasts in that they do not produce infant milk. They are also not generally associated with sex, whereas women's breasts are. So, they are physiologically different, they have a different function, they look different, and they are viewed from an an entirely different cultural perspective. Men's chests and women's breasts - it's comparing apples and oranges.

Stu you need to do your homework before making physiological statements. Men and women have the same breast tissue. The "difference" between men and women in breast looks begins at puberty. High levels of estrogen cause the breast tissue to grow. This is why girls "grow" breasts. Boys, on the other hand, do not grow breasts because they primarily have testosterone.

Men will grow breasts when they get fat. Fat causes higher levels of estrogen. (I am not sure of the exact reason this happens, but it does.) The extra estrogen will cause men's breasts to grow.

Men have a very small amount of vestigial and largely inactive breast tissue in their chests - that doesn't make them breasts.

Men's breasts are largely inactive breast tissue...just like women. The only women who have active breast tissue are those who are nursing. When they are done nursing, their breasts become inactive. So based upon your definition of breasts (that they must be active), non-nursing women do NOT have breasts. This means they can walk around topless since they doe not have breasts just like men.

I have a small amount of vestigial ovarian tissue in my abdomen - that doesn't mean I have ovaries.

No you don't if you, as a fetus, developed "normally." Men do not have vestigial ovarian tissue. Women do not have vestigial testicular tissue. (Vestigial means the tissue or organ no longer has function in the human body...that we can determine. The most popular vestigial "organ" humans have are our appendixes.) An ovary and testicle begin development in the fetus as a single blob. It will become an ovary by default. In the presence of testosterone at the right time, this same blob will become a testicle. We have 2 blobs which become 2 ovaries or 2 testicles. Ovaries remain in the abdomen. Testicles migrate through the abdomenal muscles and end up in the scrotum. (This is why doctors check men for abdominal hernias by poking up the scrotum and asking the guy to cough.)

This is all fasinating to me. Just remember men and women all start out the same way during fetal development. That testy hormone testosterone causes many structures to change. It makes the female structures into male structures. Examples of these homologous structures are ovaries to testicles, Fallopian Tube to vas deferens, labia majora to scrotum, clitoris to penis. It is so amazing that the same cells can develop into different structures based upon the presence of a hormone. Wow!

[Bob S.]

Stu: "My point was that nudists here are not protesting about other laws which treat men and women differently."

This is a nudist forum. You will see us mainly talking about topfreedom when it comes to women's rights. It does not mean we are oblivious to all other forms of discrimination of women. If and when I see discrimination of women, I will make myself heard in the appropriate arenas. I have done so in the Open Conversation forum in the past, but will not always come here to post something.

Stu: "Non-discrimination should be a general principle, not an absolute and inflexible edict"

Non-discrimination should be the hightst ideal and we should all work for that. Discrimination harms those who are discriminated against beit fathers in divorce cases, repressed ethnicities, and the like. Now you have said that everyone has the right not to be offended, but you seem to accept that not everyone has the right not to be discriminated against. Discrimination is an offense to the very core of the person's identity. How do you reconcile those discrepencies?

Stu: "Ultimately, all laws exist to maximise the level of happiness in society. The alternative to that is that human happiness is subordinate to cold principles"

You can't legislate happiness just as you can't legislate morality. A person's happiness is subjective to each individual and if it is dependent on outside influences, then the person will never be happy. Happiness is a state of mind, not a state of societal order.

Bob S.

[Yogi Bare]

Men's pectoral areas are not really "breasts", as they are in the female sense. They consist chiefly of musculature and fatty deposits rather than true breast tissue.

Men have a very small amount of vestigial and largely inactive breast tissue in their chests - that doesn't make them breasts.
Stu

I believe that the medical profession would stongly disagree with your assertions that men do not have breasts.

[Bob S.]

Regarding breasts, there is a condition called gynecomastia where a man or boy has a hormonal imbalance and grows breasts just like a woman. There is a report on this from Health24 (http://www.health24.com/Man/Your_Health/748-4418-4431,52994.asp), a medical website, that states, among other things, that up to 60% of the male population will have enlarged breasts at some point in their lives. Sometimes, such as the case of teenaged boys, it may reverse as hormones settle down. Other times, the condition may remain.

Also interesting in that site is that is states that men do indeed have mammary glands, but we just have very little in the way of mammary tissue normally. Males with the hormone imbalance just start growing more mammary tissue. Accompanying this article is a youtube video about a BBC documentary on gynecomastia.

The only thing that separates male breasts from female breasts is hormone levels. Estrogen causes more mammary tissue growth while less estrogen causes less mammary tissue growth. This is an immutable characteristic just as skin pigmentation. We can't control how much hormones our body produces, so just because larger breasts on women are seen one way is irrelevant just as darker skin was seen as negative by the greater society at one time.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

Lord Drakkus

So the OED says that harm includes:

actual or potential ill effect.

have an adverse effect on.

Says it all, doesn't it?

Sanman

culture" is NOT universal in all parts of the world.

I appreciate that. I live in western European culture, not Patagonian culture or japanese culture or Australian Aboriginal culture. I want the society in which I live to uphold my culture.

"You have simply been conditioned since childhood into believing that breasts (and genitals) are "obsceen" or "gross" or whatever else you want to call it.

Of course. But, as with previous generations, I have embraced that "conditioning" and passed it on to my own children because it is the way i want my society to be.

We have every right to try to change culture. When you say we shouldn't try to change culture, why not?

You comprise a tiny minority of the population and you have your own agenda. So you have every right to suggest cultural change, but no right to force it on others.

Kouak

Stu you need to do your homework before making physiological statements. Men and women have the same breast tissue. The "difference" between men and women in breast looks begins at puberty.

I have done my homework. In fact, my daughter (a doctor) is with me as I type this - she is presently visiting us. She tells me that the medical profession do not regard male breast tissue as being the same as female breast tissue. Most of the male tissue is not active mammary tissue, but muscle and fat. Yes, it is possible in some circumstances for the vestigial tissue to be "activated" so that it starts to develop both the shape of the female breast and even to lactate, but this is the exception and not the rule. This does occur if a man is exposed to high levels of oestrogen, but oestrogen is a predominantly FEMALE hormone. Otherwise, doctors do not generally talk of men having "breasts".

The only women who have active breast tissue are those who are nursing. When they are done nursing, their breasts become inactive.

That is irrelevant. It's like trying to argue that a man's penis ceases to be a proper penis if he is incapable of gaining an erection. Body parts are defined by their function, not their efficiency at any particular point in life.

No you don't if you, as a fetus, developed "normally." Men do not have vestigial ovarian tissue.

I was born with an intersex syndrome.

BobS

Non-discrimination should be the hightst ideal and we should all work for that.

I disagree. For me, and for many other commentators on jurisprudence, non-discrimination is a broad guiding principle - at best a "crude tool" - and it should never be used in a way that is at odds with the maximising the sum of human contentment. Raising such a concept above the interests of the people it is meant to serve is subordinating human beings to cold, abstact principles, just as the Soviets did, and as some islamic societies are doing right now. Principles are tools to guide us, not our masters who rule us.

Now you have said that everyone has the right not to be offended,

This, too, is a guiding principle, but in this case it serves to maximise human contentment, so it automatically reconciles with my point about discrimination.

You can't legislate happiness just as you can't legislate morality. A person's happiness is subjective to each individual and if it is dependent on outside influences, then the person will never be happy. Happiness is a state of mind, not a state of societal order.

You can legislate to make the conditions necessary for the maximisation of human happiness to become a reality. That's what most legislators generally aspire to do and, in doing so, they have regard to cultural norms and values.

Yogi Bare

I believe that the medical profession would stongly disagree with your assertions that men do not have breasts.

My daughter's assertion on that point is that it is a matter of degree. The medical profession do not generally talk about men having "breasts" unless there is some specific medical abnormality in which they are either enlarged or they suffer a disease generally associated with women.

Stu

[barenaked1]

It seems that this thread has gone off track.

[Bob S.]

Stu: "actual or potential ill effect"

If that is the definition of harm, then everything is harmful as everything has the potential to cause ill effect. Eating is harmful. Breathing is harmful. Mere living is harmful.

"have an adverse effect on."

See above. Everything can have an adverse effect, so everything can be defined as harm.

Stu: "So you have every right to suggest cultural change, but no right to force it on others."

We have every right to try to change the law either by petitioning or civil disobedience.

Stu: "She tells me that the medical profession do not regard male breast tissue as being the same as female breast tissue."

Did you look at the website I referred to? Just because the medical differentiates between male and female breasts does not mean they are anatomically different. It means that they deal with them in different ways because of the mammary tissue difference.

What is interesting in your past is that when you were growing up, you were raised as a female and, in that designation, society was less tolerant of you going shirtless in public. Then, during puberty, it was discovered you were male and suddenly, your breasts were perfectly fine to show in public. Why is that? They didn't change. The only thing that changed was your gender designation.

What of transsexuals? When a woman goes from a man to woman, she gets a breast reduction. Her nipples are no different, but she is now allowed to go shirtless as she is designated as a male. Nothing has changed anatomically with the breast, just in size.

Stu: "non-discrimination is a broad guiding principle - at best a "crude tool" - and it should never be used in a way that is at odds with the maximising the sum of human contentment."

Contentment and happiness are, as I said, too individualistic of factors and are focused more on internal factors than external. If there is legal discrimination, society must have a hugely compelling reason for doing so. Because it has always been that way is not a compelling reason. Neither is because very few people want it. What is the compelling reason for this discrimination?

Bob S.

[Yogi Bare]

STU: My daughter's assertion on that point is that it is a matter of degree. The medical profession do not generally talk about men having "breasts" unless there is some specific medical abnormality in which they are either enlarged or they suffer a disease generally associated with women.


The medical profession may not generally refer to men having breasts in everyday "talk", but that doesn't change that fact that they have them. Now it seems as if there is a "matter of degree" involved. So if they use the term "breast" in connection with men because they are enlarged or have a disease generally associated with women (such as breast cancer), that just adds credibility from the medical profession that men have breasts. Your own daughter's assertion pretty much washs away your theory that men do not have breasts. So now that it's established that the chest areas of both men and women have breasts, with the only outward appearance being that women's breasts tend to be larger in size, it's time to stop discriminating against women and let them be top-free anywhere in public that men are allowed to be so.