Should women have the right to walk around topless?

I am not a Libertarian, so that is your first fail.

Libertarianism however, is opposed to "morality laws". Does a woman walking around harm anyone? No. So by Libertarian logic it would be allowed.

Your silly point of trying to draw up a link between Libertarianism and your imagined "social Marxism" is silly. I can't even find "social Marxism" on Google. It is total bull(*)(*)(*)(*) without basis in reality. But maybe you can point me in a direction of a reputable source that defines social Marxism?

So yes, your argument has been curb stomped.

Have a fantastic night.

 

I heard this story about a woman who recently decided to go topless as a bit of a social experiment and a political protest. Supposedly, she made it out the front door, only to be confronted by a mob of people that were either trying to get a look at her boobs, or else trying to yell at her for leaving her boobs visible.

(Note: I know it's not the most technical term. I just like the term 'boobs.' It's fun to say.)

Anyway, she bravely tried to make it down the street, only to be handcuffed by the cops and placed in a car where she was told by two seemingly well-intentioned officers that she wouldn't be allowed to walk down the street topless for her own safety. Yes, the law was technically on her side, and toplessness was not technically illegal, and she technically had her right to express herself and her boobs -- but only technically. These two cops were pretty sure that if they let her walk down the street a natural, something tragic would happen and they just couldn't let that happen.

Not having been there, I don't even know if any of this story is true, so naturally I can't properly judge any of the people involved. But, having said that, I think the cops made a mistake.

'Cause this woman did have the right to bare her chest. The cops shouldn't have prevented her from exercising her rights because they thought it might be dangerous -- if they were really worried, they should have escorted her and done their part to make her safe. And no, obviously, the police can't protect anybody all the time, and they've probably got more important things to do (but then again maybe not). But then she should have brothers and uncles and a father willing to protect her, to stand between her and whatever danger might prevent her from exercising a right that they all take for granted. She should have sisters and aunts and a mom willing to stand with her, even if they don't care to bare their own breasts. In the end she should have herself, 'cause if we don't stand up for ourselves, we can't have any rights of any kind, frivolous or vital.

It's a silly thing. It shouldn't keep anybody up at night. But me, I'm proud to be a mammal. I'm tired of traditions that tell us that people have to be controlled in order to be kept safe. I'm tired of a cultural that is terrified of anything as lovely and benign as a nipple. I'm tired of men that can't control their reactions and women that can't control the urge to manipulate the reactions of men. I believe that every single one of us, man or woman, old or young, beautiful or ugly, has the right to bare their chest to the sun and the sky. It may be impolite in some circles, but it's more impolite to tell other people how to dress and handcuff them if they don't obey.

In the name of truth, love, courage, freedom and peace, I say:

Free the orbs.

Viva mammalia!

 

Ha! You spotted him too!

 

Hmm, ironic considering your avatar picture. I notice she's topless. A liberal, perhaps?

 

Traditions? The traditions are against freedom, liberty.

Everyone can dress ad they want, even don't dress anything, not even topless.

Do you have any problem with topless guys?

 

You get what you wish for:

 

Oh hello again...

Not necessarily. When you choose a tradition, it is not against liberty. Choice is essential liberty.

But, if you have difficulties with this think of it the way that you intend to "train" workers to want to work in a collective state for the good of all and yet still call that liberty and freedom. We're inviting people to adhere to a state for the good of our eyeballs.

Do people have the right to go naked? Theoretically, yes. Your body, your choice. However, I gave an opinion and that opinion is that I don't want to see it. I don't want to see men walking around topless either, necessarily. There are plenty of people (most) that really, really shouldn't.

My point was that certain traditions (modesty) prevent a sameness, a numbness to those things that are exciting and titillating. When I said that I'd rather have those traditions become inclusive (tell men they can't go topless) rather than destroy them entirely I was giving my semi-serious opinion. There is a point of over-saturation of sexuality that has made it less...exciting. When sex was still "naughty" it was more fun than it is without hindrance.

The reason why bands like Led Zeppelin and their Continental Riot House were exciting for their time was because they were very naughty "bad boys". Stevie Nicks was a "bad girl", Madonna when she came out, with the exposed belly, the sexy songs was "exciting". Now, it is so proliferated it's like...oh, there's another half nude pop star.

If people walk around naked the only thing that will be rebellious is going to church and turning into a Mormon.

I realize that my "argument" is filled with logical fallacies and I'm fine with that. I get that technically we all have the right to do what we want with our bodies and lives (unless that means smoking pot, eating shrooms, not paying taxes, wanting to protest at the White House gates, drink raw milk, etc), but I also understand that nature of progression and what happens when we destroy certain traditions.

Life gets really boring.

 

It is traditional in some cultures (ours) to wear clothing but not in others, some it is tradition not to wear clothing (indigenous peoples of the Americas) and for the like...oh, fiftieth time, I never spoke on the "rightness" or "correctness" of the tradition that says we should wear clothing. I said that my desires (meaning "not society's") is that we keep this particular tradition and to make it fair include men. I don't particularly want (indicating an emotional reaction) to see people with their tits hanging down to their waist or penises curved the wrong way if we should allow full on, no stop, public nudity.

As a libertarian I certainly believe that individuals have rights within limits (health hazards, public infringement) to do as they wish, and as a primitivist I believe that we have a right to live free of government entirely (meaning no clothes), but as I am constrained in my inalienable rights and am told it is for the good of the country then my feelings in regards to constraining these rights to nudity are okay, too. There is more of an argument for preventing that and all the trouble it could case then preventing people from smoking pot, but...

We live in a give and take. I would like all my rights given back and if the trade off for it is to say everyone can be naked and do whatever they want...GREAT. I'll not only not care that a 500 lb dude whose penis is no longer visible is walking around buck naked but I'll give him a hug. I would rather have no government, no laws against individual liberty rather than this collectivist cafeteria style product we have now.

 

The question however is "what constitutes nudity?". The woman is saying that the definition is different for men and women, and she's right.

Men can show nipples, women not - even though they are the same visible item.

A man walking around with his fatty man-boobs is allowed, but not a woman.

The reality is that if people just got past it and didn't react, she'd quickly stop doing it.

 

Hence why I'm saying that we should include men in the statutes so we are prevented from partaking also in this:



Granted, this is not in line with my libertarian feelings, but...

 

I don't want to see people with some kind of clothes, and I have to. That is freedom. Your opinions cannot force others to do things that they don't want.

Traditions are against progress. Some time ago in Spain was relatively traditional has the women working at home, and the men could hit them without problems. Traditions usually are reactionary.

And a show of hipocresy is that you want to limit liberty/freedom of that individuals want to do, and all it based in your likes/dislikes. In that feeling even you can ask to ban metal music because you don't like it and you think that it is provocative.

And as you've said it goes against your own beliefs, only because you feel uncomfortable by some things.

 

Did I say that they did? I wasn't aware that I had become Galactic Empress.

Progress where? Some traditions aren't necessarily bad. Our Constitution was a great tradition that progressed into corn crusted crap.

I would reread what I said about my personal feelings versus my philosophical leanings. Adults usually can distinguish between the two. I said:

Meaning that I would not care about a single naked person were I to be given 100% freedom because not only do they have the freedom to do what they want, but I have the freedoms to do what I want.

When you say that this freedom (public nudity) is okay but that freedom (eating magic mushrooms) is not okay, you are also inhibiting individual liberty and freedom. You can't have "partial freedom" and call it freedom. There is no such thing as limited liberty.

Therefore, if given the choice I would say return all freedom to everyone--regardless of me not wanting to see 89 year old men naked.

 

So some bloke with a 6-pack = OK?

And with these views, you are clearly not a libertarian.

 

Nope, I said that I would rather see none. That means the Mighty Thor, too. My point is that people on here have a choice of "only if they are good-looking", which I find absurd, just as this thread is rather absurd.

However, I also said that I would prefer that we have all of our freedoms back and would be quite content if everyone walked around naked if it meant that we had no government.

 

Actually, I need to stress this...it is not a "libertarian" view to want public nudity, it is a primitivist, minarchist, anarchist view. Libertarians do have some constraints. You're calling me out on my primitivist views and I concede to my personal conflict, but also state with all truthfulness that if we could get rid of government altogether I would be quite happy to see everyone walking around naked.

Are you saying that all of your feelings align perfectly? There are no exceptions to your own rules?

 

As long as they are required to wear a bottom I don't care. I wouldn't do it nor would I really hang out with women while they were doing it as I don't think it is very classy and I don't like or need any more unwanted attention.

Have to have a bottom to be in public for hygienic reasons.

 

Can't wait til lib men demand to get pregnant... don't laff, you know it's coming. *equal rights* and all that.

Lame thread... but good way to tell which posters are morally bankrupt.

 

Currently, everybody in America has the "Right" to wear thin, skin tight, lime green spandex with nothing underneath...


Thank the Gods that MOST Americans don't.

 

I can't believe the poll. Does a man have the right to go around with his penis hanging out, absolutley not. We are selling sex in our society to young women that are 4 or 5 years old. Everywhere we look we see celiberities going on TV in atire that would be more appropriate in a topless bar or a pole dancing bar. This is just crazy. I am a man and love to look at women but not topless. Those of you that voted yes let me ask if you 14 year old daughter should do that?

 

Wiki strawman fallacy.

No one is suggesting that men walk around without pants. No one is suggesting that women walk around without pants. What is suggested is that woman be granted the same rights as men.

 

Don`t tell me that they want to take over our share of prostate cancer now!

 

Talking of which, hows that MO thread of yours doing in the "humor" section?

 

Laugh................

 

God.....

Of all the western nations...the US is the most like a bunch of blue haired church prudes I've ever seen.

 

While this is an insulting post that seems to attack her as a woman, it has the added flavor of a complete generalization that violates the new terms of us.