I’m working on erasing the stigma associated with female toplessness in public places and am curious what others have experienced regarding this topic
I am going to list all the arguments I have heard.
So what people claim is that female breasts are sexual organs and are different from male ones so they need to be covered up at all times.
An argument against this would come like this: well unlike the genitalia, breasts are just secondary sexual organs and an equivalent of this would be having men cover up theur adam's apple or smth.
The best argument I have heard against having gender neutral clothing laws is that as a man, it doesn't make a difference if someone casually taps you on your shoulder or your chest and it won't bother you and would be the same thing to you. However you'll get much different reactions if you casually tap a woman on her shoulder and when you tap a woman on her chest. Tapping her on the shoulder would basically be not a big deal and the same as tapping a man on the shoulder. However hust casually tapping a woman on her chest is very much sexual assault, she'll react that way to it and there is no part the male body other than their crotch that would be equivalent of casually tapping a woman's chest. People have claimed that this proves that the female breast is much more sexual than a man's chest or basically anywhere in the man's body except their crotch or butt so this is why female breasts covering should have the same laws as crotch covering and butt covering
However I disagree with this sentiment and believe that just because most women don't find their breasts to be so open about and treat it with as much intimacy as any other body part doesn't mean that all of them should be forced by law to cover it.
Also the laws don't make any sense tbh, like you are allowed to show the curvature of your boobs on instagram whereas you have to hide the nipples even though the curvature is what makes them different from a male chest and but nipples are something both have. So restrict something that both have and allow something that only one of that has like, they don't care that it's sexually different since the only different part is the one you're not covering up. I know that instagram isn't the law but this seems to be like the general view on them from most people goes with instagram.
What do you think about this?
https://i.redd.it/mj959d3g18261.png
somewhere Alan Partridge is outraged
Here comes the priests and nuns, fellow Redditors, I was worried that they would be too busy criticizing the entertainment industry to attack my post.
Why do we have this silly culture of “Think about the children!” ? Not only is it arrogant but also a sign of poor education.
When we’re in the beaches in Spain or France, we see women who are topless and the locals are fine with this. But if a woman is in Florida, Jersey Shore or Myrtle Beach and she wishes to get a tan on her breasts, the local prudes dont allow her. They see it as shameful and “sexual”
We are so obsessed with sexuality that we see it in the most natural and obscure places. Look at the children in the Netherlands and see how educated they are in regards to sex. The parents don’t panic over a silly thing such as a topless woman sunbathing.
Yet, here in America, we are too conservative over such a natural disposition. Even the liberals are conservative towards it.
But then somebody would say “If we allow toplessness, then the people would be clamoring for having beaches be fully nude.”
This is a silly argument and in our European neighbors you don’t see this. Allow toplessness and that’s it.
“But if you want toplessness so much, then just go to a nude beach!”
But, ladies and gentlemen, that would defeat the purpose of my post. The objective is to lessen this uptight fear of breasts and have us come to a more agreeable and natural interpretation of the human body.
Why do we allow vulgarity in children’s media and in public schools but find topless beaches so contemptible? We are still the faithful observers of our Puritan ancestors.
Speak to your congressmen, rally the people together and do your duty as citizens of a democracy so that the right laws are passed and put an end to this dogmatic and unnatural tradition.
I ask this question bcs in CK3, nudity is only allowed in the Adamite Christian faith, which has to be revived, and a specific Jain sect. I know that on one hand, I know that the depiction of the Jain sect in question was incorrect—it was the wrong sect, and only men, specifically monks, not rulers, actually went nude (the Sky-Clad)
Likewise while Adamitism inspired fringe movements in Europe, it was still very much rare and wouldn’t have had a chance of actually influencing the medieval era as it does.
However, what were the beliefs regarding nudity, female toplessness, exposure of the genitals, and such in Medieval cultures within the scope of CK3’s world (all of Europe, almost all of Asia and Africa above the equator)
I know that Ibn Battuta mentions toplessness in both Egypt and Mali (doesn’t he say the Mansa’s daughters went nude?) and that toplessness was enforced among non-Brahmins and Kshatriyas in Kerala until 1858. Likewise, there are tales of dresses exposing the breast in question re: Elizabeth and Mary II but both postdate the end of CK3’s timeline (1450)— what were the rules, social norms about nudity in Europe, Asia and Africa above the Equator? How did they apply to kings and emperors, aristocracy, feudal lords, peasantry and the members of a ruler’s court?
Is it legal in Israel for women to be topless at the beach or pool? Is it actually done?
We apparently have state Supreme Courts ruling with this type of stupidity:
>The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance did not discriminate against women, noting that it bars nudity of both men and women. The different definition of what constitutes nudity is based on “the traditional understanding of what constitutes nudity,” that court concluded.
That ruling is as sensible as saying that it's not not genital mutilation to forcibly cut the genitals of a baby simply because you came up with a euphemism for the nonconsensual procedure. It's as stupid as saying that black people couldn't possibly be allowed to vote because they're only 3/5 of a person. It's the same type of stupid as saying that global warming isn't real because the calendar says it's winter.
My response to that type of stupidity takes two approaches: my favorite approach is to physically beat the snot out of the person who asserts that it's a legitimate argument, but since that's usually not a good long-term strategy, I usually skip it and go straight to my second approach, derived from a literary source with a unique way of viewing the world. You start playing Calvin Ball with it.
So in this case, my first move in bare-chested Calvin Ball would be to bastardize transgenderism a bit (with apologies), and introduce the concept of split-genderism. A split-gendered person could be masculine on the left half, and feminine on the right half, or perhaps in this case, a person could be feminine below the ribs, and masculine through the rest of the torso.
And if that doesn't fly, introduce the concept of neuter gender, which the English language applies to most objects so ubiquitously that it's odd that we don't even conceive of it as being possible to apply to people. Essentially, declare one's torso to be non-gendered. This is reasonable, as my ears are non-gendered, my pinkie fingers are non-gendered, my ankles are non-gendered, and my love handles are non-gendered.
The next tactic might be to up the absurdity a bit and say that one is breastfeeding invisible twins who have amazing latching power and do not require extra support from the arms.
Seriously, when you can't tell from a Supreme Court ruling whether the authors of the opinion are writing in bad faith or if they're stupid enough to believe what they say, then treating the system as an absurdity is probably the next logical step, given that logic has been largely abandoned.
What would the world look like if the free-the-nipple movement became commonly accepted? Obviously, this varies by location and culture.
It would be fair. It would be consistent. But most importantly, it would help to protect impressionable young people from being distracted, demeaned, or corrupted by their lust.
The bare male torso is absolutely a sexually stimulating zone that serves the same role in arousing straight women and homosexual men that the female torso serves in stimulating straight men and homosexual women.
Lust in any form is unquestionably dangerous and destabilizing to public life, and people should not be allowed to take it out in the open and impose it on unsuspecting bystanders.
People who impose lust on others are rightly charged with indecent exposure.
Personally it doesn't bother me if someone else sees my gf topless, but that might be because I don't have a lot of body modesty myself. What do y'all think about the subject?
Edit: I'm not talking about exhibitionism. I mean in situations like on the beach.
Here come the priests and nuns, fellow Redditors, I was worried that they would be too busy criticizing the entertainment industry to attack my humble post.
Why do we have this silly culture of “Think about the children!” ? Not only is it arrogant but also a sign of poor education.
When we’re in the beaches in Spain or France, we see women who are topless and the locals are fine with this. But if a woman is in Florida, Jersey Shore or Myrtle Beach and she wishes to get a tan on her breasts, the local prudes dont allow her. They see it as shameful and “sexual”
We are so obsessed with sexuality that we see it in the most natural and obscure places. Look at the children in the Netherlands and see how educated they are in regards to sex. The parents don’t panic over a silly thing such as a topless woman sunbathing.
Yet, here in America, we are too stiff over such a natural disposition.
But then somebody would say “If we allow toplessness, then the people would be clamoring for having beaches be fully nude.”
This is a silly argument and in our European neighbors you don’t see this. Allow toplessness and that’s it.
“But if you want toplessness so much, then just go to a nude beach!”
But, ladies and gentlemen, that would defeat the purpose of my post. The objective is to lessen this uptight fear of breasts and have us come to a more agreeable and natural interpretation of the human body.
Why do we allow vulgarity in children’s media and in public schools but find topless beaches so contemptible? We are still the faithful observers of our Puritan ancestors.
