https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.75804e521c0d I have to agree with this. Women should have equal rights to go as topless as men. My prediction for this thread is we are going to get the whole "Who wants to see hanging breast" BS argument. I will counter it now with there being a lot of men who have effectively hanging breasts, typically called pecs on men. But nonetheless, it is the same area, and on larger men it is really no different. So there is that argument out the window. BTW this is in no means an argument on whether either gender can go bottomless. That's a topic for another thread.
What else do you expect? Men like to look at tits and that's the end of that. A few butch women deciding they want equality isn't going to change the fact men **** women and women get ****ed.
The way contemporary MS-Feminism uses the concept of "sexualisation" is something I don't, and will never, fully understand. It is based on a highly contradactive rhetoric that does not really make any sense and, when all comes around, probably is the result of jealousy and of emotional hysteria. They (MS-Feminists) possess an urgent desire to monopolise the right to dictate over other people's bodies, but at the same time claim to be pro-everyone's-right-to-their-body. If someone takes a picture of a woman in, say, a bikini, it is not only that woman in the picture that has been "sexualised", but also has that photo "sexualised" every other woman on Earth. I really do not understand the logic here, but then of course I am a man. A white and heterosexual one too, for that matter. So, I am not even supposed to understand it. I guess. It just is how it is. But, for women - they say - it is different (because although we are equal, we are not?) - If you photograph a pair of tits, you have been guilty of "sexualising" tits as such and thereby also everyone who owns a pair of tits. Unless the tits are used for breastfeeding of course or to make some kind of "anti-patriarchal" statement in for example a "sl*t-walk". Then it is empowering because, well just because. How the heck does this complex science work? I really do not get it. And, if a cute woman shows off her feminine face in TV, it is not "sexualisation of the female body" although every woman has a face (seems to be some really advanced algebra), but if the woman shows her face in a porno...Well, then we are back at the female body as a whole (and not only the woman in question) being the victim of "sexualisation". Supermodels are poor victims of "sexualising structures" too - a good-looking model who gets paid (Omg! Exploitation!) to pose in a magasine is also "oppressing" millions and millions to conform to "sexist beauty ideals" and that offends jealous uglies, I guess. Sexualisation it is! (Hmmm). MS-Feminists need no logic or proof. What they say is always true regardless if it actually is not (lol). "Sexualisation" is obviously so terrible and awful that everyone has to be stripped on their rights to their own body. ...Or whatever...I really don't understand this.
You need to expand on that. I can easily read that as it is psychopathic to force women to wear tops if they don't want to.
What would be the reaction if they achieved equality by going the other way and banning anyone from going topless?
I fully support women wearing, or not wearing, anything they want, as long as it does not endanger others. And, I fully support the ability for businesses and government to set dress codes for their establishments. Freedom, baby. Set 'em free!
Many women don't want to see topless women in public. My girlfriend sure as hell doesn't. I'll defer to the women on this one.
Equal rights. Both are bared from showing genitals, but it is a double standard when it comes to the upper body. If the law wants to go for all individuals, male and female must be covered on public property then so be it. There is no right to go topless in public. Private property is a different manner.
My point is that in order to make it acceptable, WOMEN need to be fully on board. That will never happen. Useless to try.
You can ask all questions you want. Women are not on board with being topless in public. Many find it very offensive. It's never going to change. Parks and Rec (funny tv show) actually had a great reasoning behind why women won't allow that to be acceptable. Give it a google, it's both funny and true. I think it's in the Pawnee Ranger episode. Can you tell me when in history men weren't socially acceptable to be shirtless?
ROFL!!! That is the same kind of arguments that have been made every time women's fashion ended up revealing more and more flesh. Now we have bikini's that are to the point they might as not be wearing anything. And there are currently women who are not on board with that. It will most likely change. Wouldn't surprise me to see it in my lifetime. [/QUOTE]Can you tell me when in history men weren't socially acceptable to be shirtless?[/QUOTE] Most of history, actually. Even topless at the beach is a relatively recent thing, as men's swimsuits used to cover their tops as well.
If you believe that to be true, hold your breath and wait for it to be acceptable for women to walk around topless. Best of luck
I think these state statutes and ordinances should be written as gender neutral. Keep it local so that each community sets its own standard for where nudity / going topless is permitted, but it should be a gender neutral standard.
