Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Topless females

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Topless females

    I'm new here, so this may have been covered already. My question is in regards to women taking their shirts off in public. This is fine for men, but what about women? I read something in the media a while back about cops getting in trouble for arresting a lady that went topless. Seems like it's a clear case of sexual discrimination to me. Both sexes need to have the same standards. Please share any experiences you have had with this.

  • #2
    Hi Shayla! The is a group out there fighting for your right to be topless anyplace men can be! There called TERA. Visit there website to find out more info - http://www.tera.ca Also http://www.gotopless.org I do agree with you that it should be legal, and it is in New York state!
    nakedIOWAman
    Member
    Last edited by nakedIOWAman; 11-14-2007, 07:56 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Topless Women

      My wife, even though she's not a nudist, agrees with you and me on this issue. Women should be able to take off their shirts if they want to wherever a man can. No one would force them to take their shirts off (just like no one forces me to), but they should be able to choose for themselves what to do. If I want to take my shirt off, I legally have the option in most outdoor places. But my wife does not have that legal option. She and I agree that she should have that right, just the same as I do. Not that she ever would take her shirt off in public, but she wants the right to exercise the right.

      Welcome. Stay nude.

      bg

      Comment


      • #4
        My girl and I (she just turned 8) take a karate class together. Last spring or so we were running as part of the exercises we do at the start of class and were out on the streets. I took off my shirt and tucked it into my shorts and she did the same. After a bit she asked me about it. I said that yes there was a rule that women aren't supposed to but that I thought it was a dumb rule, that men and women should be treated the same. I said that since she was a kid I doubted anyone would care, it's mostly because women have breasts and men don't. After another minute or so she put her shirt back on because of her "baby boobs" (which is pure wishful thinking on her part). Bottom line different laws for different genders can't be justified anymore than different laws for different races, ethnicities, religions, etc.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't believe this is a question of equality. Females have breasts with large nipples for feeding babies. Men have chests which, while they may have fat deposits or muscles under the area of their vestigial, non-functioning nipples, they are not "breasts" in the sense that women have them. I have to say that I am comfortable with the fact that, by virtue of these differences in function and appearance, different rules are often applied as to when and where females can expose this particular part of their anatomy than those applied to males.

          Stu

          Comment


          • #6
            Utter nonsense. Men can produce milk:
            Sorry, but that really is nonsense. Producing milk by which to feed an infant is not a natural function of a male. It may be physically possible in some circumstances by a manipulation of nature, but men are not designed to do it and that's why new fathers don't lactate shortly after birth. No male mammals are designed to feed milk to their young and to do so is aberrant.

            Gynecomastia is not a correct or natural function of the male body, but rather a malfunction. It was at one time extremely rare in men who were past their adolescence and it only become more prevalent because human beings in the developed world have become abnormally fat due to unnatural diets and physical inactivity, or through some sort of physical illness such as kidney failure. As for men getting breast cancer - yes, I know that. Cancer can attack any soft tissue in the human body, but the cancer any oncologist will tell you that the kind of cancer a man gets in that part of his body is quite different in nature to that which a woman would get. For one thing, female breast cancer is normally oestrogen-dependent - it feeds on the female hormone. The treatments are often different, too.

            No law should be passed criminalizing a human body part simply because of differences in "function and appearance".
            That's your opinion and you are entitled to have it and to express it, just as I am entitled to express my opinion. I simply said that I am comfortable with treating males and females differently when it comes to exposing that part of the body. I feel that way because I don't regard it as an issue of equality because those parts of the body are so very different in their form and function. For me, and many others like me, these differences mean that the female breast is an intimate part of the human body whereas the male breast is not.

            Stu

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Stu2630 View Post
              For me, and many others like me, these differences mean that the female breast is an intimate part of the human body whereas the male breast is not.

              Stu
              I agree that they are different.

              But:

              In my opinion it would not be an issue if in fact society did not and would stop sexualizing parts of the body. That is what is nonsense.

              Comment


              • #8
                Function and size of breasts should be irrelevant. The only time a woman's breasts are functioning differently than a man's are when nursing - and nursing in public is pretty much ok these days. Isn't it? So, are you saying that size is what makes them "obscene"? Tell me more.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Natfam

                  In my opinion it would not be an issue if in fact society did not and would stop sexualizing parts of the body.
                  A modern woman in the west has a life expectancy of around 80 years. During that period, she will spend, on average, around one year using her breasts to feed infants, yet they will be a part of her sexual identity for all her adult life. I don't have a problem with that.

                  Nudiarist

                  You are using the exception - and the freakish - to illustrate the norm. Males don't have breasts in the female sense. The function and appearance of that part of the male chest is generally very different to that of the female breast so it is reasonable to make a working assumption that the two anatomical entities are essentially and significantly different.
                  The existence of a minuscule number of abnormal exceptions does not disprove the general validity of that premise. Similarly, the fact that a woman has very small breasts does not disqualify them from being female breasts, as opposed to part of a male chest.

                  As for the "Dyak fruit bat", I read somewhere there are some 350,000 known species of mammal on this planet, and I would be willing to bet that less than 0.001% of them have males which produce milk to feed their young - and none of those are primates! You are again using the aberrant to prove the norm and it doesn't work.

                  GreyWolf

                  Function and size of breasts should be irrelevant.
                  It is your opinion that it is irrelevant and I respect that but I hold a different opinion. To me, form and function are very relevant. It is the form and function of the sexual organs which I find unacceptable to be displayed in public and that's one reason I am not a nudist.

                  The only time a woman's breasts are functioning differently than a man's are when nursing - and nursing in public is pretty much ok these days. Isn't it?
                  I can accept public breastfeeding BECAUSE I will accept the necessity of it and IF it is done discreetly. Neither of these conditions appertain to, for example, sunbathing in a park or using a swimming pool.

                  So, are you saying that size is what makes them "obscene"? Tell me more.
                  I don't find them "obscene", that's going too far, but I do find the unnecessary exposure of breasts to be indecent and antisocial. It's not the size: it's the fact that they are female breasts, and so 1. they are designed to have the form and function of female breasts and 2. because we have a cultural association of bare female breasts with sexual activity.

                  Stu

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I've always liked the fact that what usually separates female breasts from male chests is the roundness and fullness of the breast but the round and full part is ok to show in public. Cleavage shirts, bikini tops, pasties and the like. The nipple, the part that guys have too and are allowed to show, is the part that it's criminal to show in many places.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Stu:

                      Indecent and antisocial? I'm getting that you think bare (female) breasts are indecent, but what's antisocial about them?

                      And following up on your numbered comments:

                      1. Ok
                      2. And that's the problem.

                      You're not a nudist yourself, but have you ever been to a nudist venue and observed how non-sexual ALL body parts can actually be?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Fitz1980 View Post
                        The nipple, the part that guys have too and are allowed to show, is the part that it's criminal to show in many places.

                        That is something isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stu2630 View Post
                          I can accept public breastfeeding BECAUSE I will accept the necessity of it and IF it is done discreetly. Neither of these conditions appertain to, for example, sunbathing in a park or using a swimming pool.
                          Stu
                          wow, that's very magnanimous of you!!

                          Round and round and round we go!

                          Pete Knight

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Wow, Shayla,

                            When I checked this thread this morning the responses were on topic but I see our resident ... I really don't know what to call him ... chimed in and twisted it all around.

                            The bare chest of a human should be of no concern to any save that individual be they male or female is my opinion.

                            In response to what's his name:

                            The human 'breast' functions the same in both genders and it is the norm for either gender to lactate ... lack of lactation on the part of the male gender is actually an aberration ... just as is five fingers and five toes an aberration in the human animal - six is the norm ... please study your genome better before opening mouth.:lipsrsealed2:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              nudiarist

                              For many years African-Americans were enslaved and treated as lesser human beings simply because of the color of their skin.
                              An extreme to prove a mundane? Even so, the analogy is defective because I reckon that you would get at least as many women objecting to unrestrained toplessness as men, so this is not simply about one group oppressing another.

                              This is a discussion about equal rights under the law.
                              And I said I don't consider this to be an equal rights issue because men don't have breasts in the way that women do. If we had a law which stated that policemen must not grow beards, I would not expect that rule would require all female police officers to shave every day even though most women grow some facial hair. A male beard is not the same as female chin hair and the male pectoral area does not equate to female breasts. I also believe that, as a rule of thumb, the comfort of the many should generally take precedence over the preference of the few, notwithstanding issues of equality.

                              And I make no apology for stating my beliefs as "opinions". I do that partly because they are based upon my own subjective feelings - which may not be important to you but they are to me. Secondly, it is my way of expressing the fact that contrary opinions are also valid.

                              Yes, we have a cultural association of bare female breasts with sexual activity, and that is a wrong that needs to be righted.
                              That's your opinion - it's not mine. I'm perfectly happy that female breasts are associated with sexuality and sex. Not a problem for me - and not a problem for most of the women I know who think the same way. But I suppose they are sexist too, in your world. And, just for the record, I have absolutely no interest on "moving forward on equal rights" - I think that "movement" has taken things too far already and is now damaging our social fabric. But that's another issue and not for this thread.

                              GrayWolf

                              but what's antisocial about them?
                              There is nothing antisocial about them per se, it is the circumstances in which they may be exposed which can be antisocial.

                              And following up on your numbered comments:

                              2. And that's the problem.
                              I really don't see it as a problem and, as I told nudiarist, I don't believe most women do either. The only women who seem to have an issue with it are those with strong feminist views (a minority) and nudists of both sexes who buy into this idea (another minority).

                              You're not a nudist yourself, but have you ever been to a nudist venue and observed how non-sexual ALL body parts can actually be?
                              You don't have to convince me that at a nudist venue all body parts become non-sexual. That's your world and it's how you like it and that's great for you. My world is different and I like the fact that some parts of the body are sexualised and even mystified - I find it enriches the concept of sexuality. As I said earlier - different strokes etc.

                              Nackman

                              In response to what's his name:
                              You know what my name is. I called you by your name.

                              The human 'breast' functions the same in both genders and it is the norm for either gender to lactate ... lack of lactation on the part of the male gender is actually an aberration
                              Perhaps that's the case where you come from but here on Planet Earth lactation and breastfeeding of babies is almost always a female process!

                              Stu

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X