Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In general, exposure of female anatomy has been used as a signal from time immemorial.
Recent emigrants to Europe have exhibited .acceptable behavior in raping the locals. However, from their cultural viewpoint, the women were signaling their interest, by smiling, unveiled, showing bare skin, etc.
. . .
Women who wish to "free" themselves of cultural restrictions and yet demand protections at the same time, appear contradictory.
. . .
Do these women also feel it is reasonable for men to expose their external genitalia, too?
Or are they offended and seek to prosecute "flashers?"
. . .
Invalid comparison. Genitals are always used for sex, whereas biologically boobs are not tied to sex any more than feet are. Certain cultures just artificially sexualized it in the first place.
Also boobs don't generally pose much of a sanitary issue. Genitalia does, and diseases can be spread that way, from the genitalia as well as to the genitalia. Or both.
It's a stupid idea if you ask me. In some countries, there are small group of indigenious people who barely wear any clothes, they bare boobs. I'm sure you've seen them in some photos from National geographic. http://photography.nationalgeographi...zulu-marriage/
Today, in the USA it is effectively ILLEGAL for a woman to be topless, breastfeeding included, in 35 states.
I don't care about the discussion but my pet peeve is poor, false or misleading arguments.
47 states have laws that expressly make breast feeding legal, two of the three that don't exclude breast feeding from indecency law. The only exception is Utah.
People are putting way too much thought into this. Go topless if you want to but men are going to stare. If that is going to be a problem for you then keep them covered up.
But don't complain when you Free the Nipple and you really find out how dirty and disgusting boys/men can be. Woman complain about how they are treated with "risky" clothing on, so when boobs pop out not sure what you expect.
If someone expresses something "touchy" about a minority group in public, they run the risk of offending surrounding people and could therefore trigger violence. In that case, should the First Amendment cease to exist?
Genitalia is irrelevant to the movement. These women demand equality.
To my knowledge, men don't have more rights when it comes to genital exposure.
Let's not free the nipple. My preference is to cover it on the men also. I mean, seriously, it is gross to look at especially when sweaty. As a woman, I don't want to see other women and men's nipples.
We went into the library once with our son with Down syndrome. There was a woman breastfeeding her baby, teat hanging out and facing the door. My son, of course, was very interested. I told my husband "Let him look since she put "it" out there." Shouldn't stare. Seriously, a teenage boy and a teat? Of course, with the teats out there, it is going to be against the law to look in their direction since it will be considered something forbidden, probably some type of sexual harassment. It going to be really hard for some men to maintain eye contact.................
I vote to have the men cover their nipples to make things fair. If we can't do that, I feel we should embrace nudity. Why not?
When it comes to "erotic", women's breasts are on the list with genitalia, both male and female. Let it all hang out!
I'm neither a supporter nor am I against it. I feel those who support it are often missing a larger point. If you want to handle injustices against women, there are better examples than not being able to be topless. And even if you consider that unfair or unreasonable, which there is a valid argument for, there should still be the understanding of a time and place.
As for those who oppose it, I also don't fully understand. It's a boob. It's not that big of a deal. Again, especially in regards to time and place. Yeah, just walking around with your **** hanging out is a bit unsavory, but things like breastfeeding or tanning at the beach... really? And the focus on the nipple is a bit odd. Miley Cyrus can go on stage wearing two Ritz cracker and nothing is censored, but if something even slightly pink appears behind the cracker at any point, the whole chest must be blurred off. That makes absolutely no sense.
In what way is protection from rape not applicable when seeing a boob isn't also a sex offense (yes, the list most assume is for pedophiles and rapists includes charges like public nudity). How do the two contradict, or even connect?
Also, breasts aren't genitalia.
This is a feminist issue because it can be filed under the broader category of, "See, we really are treated differently!"
It serves the interests of allowing feminists to pretend that their only goal is to be treated the same as men and that they really do want to go through life eating the same giant **** sandwich men do.
If they get what they pretend to want, they won`t be required to take their shirts off and the guy at the office who inadvertently glances at his co-workers ****, covered or not, still gets fired, sued and divorced, so nothing really changes.
That's all we need is more Sex to be added to the Immorality of the country.
We have plenty enough of it already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
