Topfree Movement: Wanting to Have Ones Cake and Eat It Too

[omgryebread]

As for the actual question: do women have the right to go topless and complain when guys stare?
I think its phrased poorly because of course they have the right to free speech, its hard to debate that one. but does it make any sense to complain? No. obviously from the things women have said they understand that it would draw attention, so going into it they understand that=men will stare=they will get annoyed. so the question they should ask themselves before the go out is, is it worth it to me? is it worth being annoyed to be topless? If not, don't. If so, do, and don't complain about it.

This doesn't make sense. Don't people complain about things they should expect all the time? Why are there no SB topics complaining about how every winter, people complain about how it's so cold? No one says "is it worth being annoyed about cold to stay in temperate zones? If not, move to Brazil. If so, stay here, and don't complain." Because people complain about things they don't like, even if there's some solution. People complain about traffic, but don't take the train, they complain about the price of cigarettes but don't try to stop smoking, etc. Should they stop complaining? Maybe, but that's just a silly debate.

Granted, moving to Brazil, taking the train, and stopping smoking are all (possibly) harder than putting on a shirt. I can't really speak for it, since I don't have any desire to go topless, but presumably these woman find shirts pretty inconvenient, so I don't see why they shouldn't go topless, and be perfectly comfortable complaining all they want.

[bloatyspizzahog]

As for the actual question: do women have the right to go topless and complain when guys stare?
I think its phrased poorly because of course they have the right to free speech, its hard to debate that one. but does it make any sense to complain? No. obviously from the things women have said they understand that it would draw attention, so going into it they understand that=men will stare=they will get annoyed. so the question they should ask themselves before the go out is, is it worth it to me? is it worth being annoyed to be topless? If not, don't. If so, do, and don't complain about it.

This doesn't make sense. Don't people complain about things they should expect all the time? Why are there no SB topics complaining about how every winter, people complain about how it's so cold? No one says "is it worth being annoyed about cold to stay in temperate zones? If not, move to Brazil. If so, stay here, and don't complain." Because people complain about things they don't like, even if there's some solution. People complain about traffic, but don't take the train, they complain about the price of cigarettes but don't try to stop smoking, etc. Should they stop complaining? Maybe, but that's just a silly debate.

Its not that silly of a debate. Its pretty much the core of the topic. If it means enough to them to openly speak out and put in the effort into making a verbal complaint then it should mean enough to them act on it by, in this situation, putting on a shirt. If it doesn't bother you enough to act on it then why even say anything at all? (this being something easily changed of course)

You're "its cold in winter so move to Brazil" argument is a little of a stretch. We cant control the weather as much as we can control our clothes. Its more like its snowing outside so if you choose to stand in the cold then either don't complain or get your frozen ass inside. Don't just stand out there going "Oh man, this sucks. I want to stand in the snow and experience winter first hand but i don't want to be cold."

Thats pretty much the definition of having cake and eating it too.

[Gopher of Pern]

What about getting changed before/after a sports game? I play football (soccer) here in Australia, and almost every guys team takes off their shirts, baring their chests, on the side of the field before and after the game. It has only recently been allowed for women to do the same thing, but they still have to keep their bras on. Why shouldn't they be able to change their bras on the side of the field?

Here in Australia, a man walking without their shirt on is uncommon, but not unusual. If you go to the local shopping centre chances are you will run into 1 or 2 guys with their shirts off. Get closer to the beaches and you will see more. Of course, some women do sunbathe topless at the beach, but I've only seen them do it facing down.

Does anyone know the legality of toplessness in Australia?

[Wodashin]

My point has been that, you can fight for the right, but just having the right doesn't make it normal. People take craps all the time. Everybody poops, that's a book. Why can't I take a dump in the bushes near some restaurants? A half naked woman isn't going to be let into an Applebee's, and neither is a half naked man. They can have the right to be that way, but I think it would be symbolic more than anything else. My point is that it pretty much is a non-issue. It's not one of need or importance, but of symbolism. If it becomes legal everywhere, fine, but it's not going to be normal. It may, many decades from now, be normal, but it would be a rarity. How often do you see a guy walking around without a shirt on? Not often, at least not in the north.

[Gopher of Pern]

My point has been that, you can fight for the right, but just having the right doesn't make it normal. People take craps all the time. Everybody poops, that's a book. Why can't I take a dump in the bushes near some restaurants? A half naked woman isn't going to be let into an Applebee's, and neither is a half naked man. They can have the right to be that way, but I think it would be symbolic more than anything else. My point is that it pretty much is a non-issue. It's not one of need or importance, but of symbolism. If it becomes legal everywhere, fine, but it's not going to be normal. It may, many decades from now, be normal, but it would be a rarity. How often do you see a guy walking around without a shirt on? Not often, at least not in the north.

Umm, hygiene?

How is it a non-issue, when a woman walking down the street topless is frowned upon (to put it lightly) alot more than a man?

[Glass Fractal]

Umm, hygiene?

He can always preform his beautiful, natural act into a baggie.

[Wodashin]

Hygiene is as much of a reason against public craps as warmth is a reason against nudity in public. Meaning it's a good and sensible argument, which was my point. My point was that this is silly, but I'm not against it. It isn't really comparable to my example, my example is purely to convey it, but in an extrapolated format. If a woman would be seen as just as odd as a man in terms of half nakedness, would it really matter? It would be fine in pools and beaches, sure, but would it be practical? Last I knew, breasts were a lot more sensitive and had a lot more surface area than male breasts (for the most part). Clothing isn't purely aesthetic. Half nakedness isn't accepted in most places, so legalizing this wouldn't matter much. It's legal in Canada, but I doubt many Canadians practice their rights, or have seen someone practicing their rights to bare breasts.

[The Great Hippo]

Hygiene is as much of a reason against public craps as warmth is a reason against nudity in public. Meaning it's a good and sensible argument, which was my point.

I... what? No. I'm not concerned about my warmth when you decide not to wear any clothes. But I'm certainly concerned about my hygiene when you decide to take a shit next to where I eat my lunch.

If a woman would be seen as just as odd as a man in terms of half nakedness, would it really matter? It would be fine in pools and beaches, sure, but would it be practical? Last I knew, breasts were a lot more sensitive and had a lot more surface area than male breasts (for the most part).

I don't know about you, but I'm just going to go on ahead and trust women to make that decision.

[Gopher of Pern]

Hygiene is as much of a reason against public craps as warmth is a reason against nudity in public. Meaning it's a good and sensible argument, which was my point. My point was that this is silly, but I'm not against it. It isn't really comparable to my example, my example is purely to convey it, but in an extrapolated format. If a woman would be seen as just as odd as a man in terms of half nakedness, would it really matter? It would be fine in pools and beaches, sure, but would it be practical? Last I knew, breasts were a lot more sensitive and had a lot more surface area than male breasts (for the most part). Clothing isn't purely aesthetic. Half nakedness isn't accepted in most places, so legalizing this wouldn't matter much. It's legal in Canada, but I doubt many Canadians practice their rights, or have seen someone practicing their rights to bare breasts.

No, warmth is not a good and sensible arguement to ban topless women in public. It's a good and sensible arguement to wear clothes in public, but if it's really that cold, then you'd be wearing clothes in private as well.

Why is it silly for someone to want the freedom to walk down the street without a top on, weather permitting?

What do you mean, would it be practical? I'm sure not all women would like to go topless, but why shouldn't they get the choice? And breasts come in all different sizes and sensitivities, for men and women, and sensitivity can often vary over time.

Clothing is for warmth, safety and aesthetics. When It's a hot day, and you are simply walking down the street, you are wearing clothes simply for aesthetics. Nothing wrong with that, but neither is going without a top. Toplessness isn't accepted in most places because of the cultural taboo, which has no rational basis. Why can't we change that?

I would imagine that the reasons for Canadians not to practise their rights would be a combination of cultural taboo, as well as being in the chilly north, where clothing would be preferable to freezing. Which is why I'm trying to talk from a point of view of someone in a hot climate, where toplessness might actually be more comfortable than clothes.

[podbaydoor]

Wodashin, I'm guessing you're male. I'd suggest you go around for a couple months wearing a constricting band around your chest during the hottest, most humid summer months of the year, for at least eight hours a day without break, then come back and lecture us women about practicality.

I'd walk around in the floatiest thinnest cotton slip (purely for sun protection) - completely sans underwear - if I could, during the summer. Or go swimming topless, like men. My breasts are small and generally don't need support...and anyway, it should be my choice whether to deal with the physical freedoms of being bra- or shirt-free. Not yours, Wodashin.

I don't do any of the above, because I have made the choice that I don't want to deal with people being shitheads at me if I do so. I understand that if I were to break the breasts taboo, people will be shitheads at me, and I understand why that will happen. It doesn't make them any less shitheaddy, and it is completely their own responsibility to be shitheads or not. That is not my responsibility.

[Wodashin]

Here, it's rarely warm enough to warrant nakedness. Last I checked, there is no law saying you must wear a bra. Arguing that, 'Oh, we can change societal taboos!' isn't a good argument at all. In fact, it's a terrible argument that can be used for anything that is currently illegal that doesn't involve murder. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right, in fact I type that out pretty much every single time I post here. No, I just think that there are more important things, and I also think that, even if this does happen, you will be stared at. If you want to walk around naked in the summer, and if it was legal, you are free to do so. Other people are also free to look, and they will look. People are going to move to the other side of the street. You can't stop that, because that's the culture here. If a man walks down the street without a shirt on, it's going to weird most people out. Everyone should be able to, but obviously you're not going to be let into most stores for the most part.

[TaintedDeity]

The fact there is more important things is hardly decent grounds for ignoring this problem. There are thousands of people starving outside in the US, does that mean we should stop worrying about poverty in the US?

[The Great Hippo]

Here, it's rarely warm enough to warrant nakedness.

Again, I'm comfortable allowing women--rather than you--make that call.

Arguing that, 'Oh, we can change societal taboos!' isn't a good argument at all. In fact, it's a terrible argument that can be used for anything that is currently illegal that doesn't involve murder.

That's not true at all. As has been pointed out previously, there are very good reasons I'm not allowed to take a shit inside your restaurant. Laws with good reasons are good laws; laws with bad reasons are bad laws. A prohibition on allowing women to bare their breasts is rooted in bad reasons (particularly, inequality--"women's breasts are vulgar, while men's breasts aren't"), so we can describe it as a bad law, and oppose it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right, in fact I type that out pretty much every single time I post here. No, I just think that there are more important things...

Then go address those more important things. I'm here to address this issue, and I don't think it's a waste of my time.

[Yakk]

The fact there is more important things is hardly decent grounds for ignoring this problem. There are thousands of people starving outside in the US, does that mean we should stop worrying about poverty in the US?

'Whew.

Problem solved!

[Wodashin]

Bad laws are subjective. Bad reasoning is subjective. All I'm saying is that using that argument is a failing of many arguments for many other illegal things that shouldn't really be illegal, or should be a non-issue. It's also used to try and make legal things that definitely should not be legal, at least by my culturally inclined brain. People fight for pedophiliac rights, and some cultures are fine with it. Should we legalize it? It'll be normal eventually.

I'm not trying to compare pedophilia with breasts, it's just that I'm trying to say that the argument being used for the top free movement are, well, extremely subjective and just not a good use of rhetoric at all. There are other, better arguments. Like equality, that's a good one, but adding in 'It's a taboo enforced by culture that we can change' shoots yourself in the foot, in my opinion.

[omgryebread]

Its not that silly of a debate. Its pretty much the core of the topic. If it means enough to them to openly speak out and put in the effort into making a verbal complaint then it should mean enough to them act on it by, in this situation, putting on a shirt. If it doesn't bother you enough to act on it then why even say anything at all? (this being something easily changed of course)

If I'm concerned about driving because of drunk drivers, I can stay off the roads. Oorrrrrr I can realize that's impractical, and support legislation against drunk driving. Or I can not do anything at all (maybe I don't like the specific legislation, or dislike other policies of the politicians who are supporting it) and just complain about it, so it registers as a social issue. The more people complain about something, the more it's in the public's mind, the more things change. Just as women who like being topless but don't like being stared at can put on a shirt or they can complain about it and hopefully change a culture that treats them as lewd.

You're "its cold in winter so move to Brazil" argument is a little of a stretch. We cant control the weather as much as we can control our clothes. Its more like its snowing outside so if you choose to stand in the cold then either don't complain or get your frozen ass inside. Don't just stand out there going "Oh man, this sucks. I want to stand in the snow and experience winter first hand but i don't want to be cold."

I'm not saying you can control the weather? You can control where you live (to an extent), just as you can control where you stand. However, your analogy fails because you haven't provided a reason for them to stand outside. Are they waiting for something? Women aren't going topless just because. Bras are annoying, sometimes it's hot, etc. They view wearing a top as inconvenient. So "putting on a shirt" is not a no-cost solution to their problem.

Here, it's rarely warm enough to warrant nakedness. Last I checked, there is no law saying you must wear a bra. Arguing that, 'Oh, we can change societal taboos!' isn't a good argument at all. In fact, it's a terrible argument that can be used for anything that is currently illegal that doesn't involve murder. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right, in fact I type that out pretty much every single time I post here. No, I just think that there are more important things, and I also think that, even if this does happen, you will be stared at. If you want to walk around naked in the summer, and if it was legal, you are free to do so. Other people are also free to look, and they will look. People are going to move to the other side of the street. You can't stop that, because that's the culture here. If a man walks down the street without a shirt on, it's going to weird most people out. Everyone should be able to, but obviously you're not going to be let into most stores for the most part.

I think most people have agreed it should be legal. I don't see what your point is other than people should shut up and stop complaining about people looking.

You say "oh, we can change societal taboos!" isn't a good argument, which is true enough. But you're not giving the complete argument. The argument (as I understand it) is thus:
1. Some women would like to be able to go topless in the same situations in which men can.
2. In current social mores, these women would be treated as lewd, if not by law*, then by other people's reactions. This includes men staring.
3. These women do not like being treated as lewd for what they think is a non-sexual act.
4. There is no objective reason why women shouldn't be allowed to go topless.
5. We can change societal taboos.
Therefore:
1. The idea that women going topless is a non-sexual act should be promoted in order to change societal taboos so that going topless is not treated as lewd.
2. Women without tops can** and will complain about men staring at them sexually, like women with short skirts do, or women in pretty much any clothing short of a burqa.

*In most jurisdictions of the US, I believe that the female breast counts for indecent exposure. I know there is a federal law exempting breastfeeding in federal buildings, so I'm assuming that's an exemption from something that exists. I know that in Vermont and California, nudity is legal. In Maryland, we rely on the common law definition of indecent exposure, and I couldn't find any case law as to whether breasts count or not.
**Yes, I know they have the legal right to complain, and no one is saying differently. I'm also saying they should be able to complain without people making forum topics complaining about them complaining.

[The Great Hippo]

Bad laws are subjective. Bad reasoning is subjective.

No, they aren't. Do you need examples of 'bad laws', or examples of 'bad reasoning'?

All I'm saying is that using that argument is a failing of many arguments for many other illegal things that shouldn't really be illegal, or should be a non-issue. It's also used to try and make legal things that definitely should not be legal, at least by my culturally inclined brain. People fight for pedophiliac rights, and some cultures are fine with it. Should we legalize it? It'll be normal eventually.

There are very clear reasons why your right to have sex with children should be restricted. There are not very clear reasons why your right to bare your breasts in public should be restricted.

[Wodashin]

They can feel however they want about it being sexual or not, thing is most people will think it is sexual or at least get sexual stimulation from it (for the most part). You cannot honestly believe it isn't a sexual act. You can feel that you are not doing it to be sexual, but it is certainly sexual to others, which is the point.

Which still doesn't matter. They should be able to do it in the same situations, but that doesn't mean they'd be treated the same way.

Just researched up on all this, and even naturists say that they have to contain the sexual feelings. :/

E: Those very clear laws are only very clear because of our culture, no? I don't want to seriously talk about this, I just used it as an example to show that the argument was a bad one. Also, yes they are subjective. Find a law, and I'll find someone who agrees with it. Just because you don't doesn't make it bad. I'm sure that, somewhere, there is a guy who thinks 'Man, why can't I go out and kill people without being harassed by the police?' quite seriously.

[omgryebread]

E: Those very clear laws are only very clear because of our culture, no? I don't want to seriously talk about this, I just used it as an example to show that the argument was a bad one. Also, yes they are subjective. Find a law, and I'll find someone who agrees with it. Just because you don't doesn't make it bad. I'm sure that, somewhere, there is a guy who thinks 'Man, why can't I go out and kill people without being harassed by the police?' quite seriously.

If you want us to seriously list the problems that adults having sex with children can cause... well, I guess I'd go hit wikipedia for something, but we really shouldn't need to do that. On the other hand, you haven't provided any problems caused by women not wearing shirts. This is totally a separate issue from culture. Regardless of culture, having sex with kids is a Bad Thing.

Yes, you could argue that we call it a Bad Thing only because of our culture. And yes, you're right to an extent, there is no objective good/bad. But most of society has decided that they, and the society they support is harmed by having sex with kids. The basic foundation of pretty much any social group, human or not, is choosing and not allowing behaviors which harm that group.

[The Great Hippo]

They can feel however they want about it being sexual or not, thing is most people will think it is sexual or at least get sexual stimulation from it (for the most part). You cannot honestly believe it isn't a sexual act. You can feel that you are not doing it to be sexual, but it is certainly sexual to others, which is the point.

I have no idea what your point is, here.

E: Those very clear laws are only very clear because of our culture, no? I don't want to seriously talk about this, I just used it as an example to show that the argument was a bad one. Also, yes they are subjective. Find a law, and I'll find someone who agrees with it. Just because you don't doesn't make it bad. I'm sure that, somewhere, there is a guy who thinks 'Man, why can't I go out and kill people without being harassed by the police?' quite seriously.

Just to be clear: Are you some sort of moral relativist? Does the existence of people who think random murdering is cool beans mean that the 'badness' of murdering is subjective? Or are you capable of seeing how random murdering is 'bad'?

[Wodashin]

No, I'm not a moral relativist. In fact, I have a strict moral guideline, I'm just saying that the argument of 'We can change the taboos 'n stuff!' is null because morals ARE subjective and relative. It's a bad argument is all.

I haven't offered a reason it would be bad because I'm for it. I just want well thought out arguments for it when people argue for it. I'm for it, but my point is that women WILL be stared at.

Thinking that 'Oh, people can't gawk because it isn't sexual personally' is having your cake and eating it too. Hence the topic's existence.

[Mavketl]

You cannot honestly believe it isn't a sexual act.

I resent your "I'm right and you agree with me about this, you're just saying you don't because it doesn't fit your argument"-claims. I can and do believe that going topless is not, in itself, a sexual act.

I'm for it, but my point is that women WILL be stared at.

Thinking that 'Oh, people can't gawk because it isn't sexual personally' is having your cake and eating it too. Hence the topic's existence.

They will be stared at, and the people doing the staring are still jerkfaces and the 'victims' of said staring will still feel uncomfortable and their discomfort will be valid and should not be dismissed by "... what did you EXPECT if you look like that?" which makes it sound like it's their responsibility that other people are being jerkfaces. Which, it bears repeating, is entirely the fault of the people who are being jerkfaces.

[The Great Hippo]

No, I'm not a moral relativist. In fact, I have a strict moral guideline, I'm just saying that the argument of 'We can change the taboos 'n stuff!' is null because morals ARE subjective and relative.

"Are you a moral relativist?" - "No, I just think morals are relative." Do you understand why I might be a little confused, here?

I'm for it, but my point is that women WILL be stared at.

Thinking that 'Oh, people can't gawk because it isn't sexual personally' is having your cake and eating it too. Hence the topic's existence.

We're aware that women will be stared at. We still characterize that staring as bad. How is this hard?

I'm also confused as to what it being sexual or not-sexual has to do with anything. You understand that some people might want to feel sexy but not necessarily invite gawking or staring, right?

[Wodashin]

It has to do with the argument on the first page about 'I want to have my cake and eat it too.'. We're actually off-topic a bit. I was being on topic.

Morals are relative to each person, and I acknowledge the existence of that, but I don't approve of it. I don't approve of that mindset. Obviously morals are subjective, but I don't accept extremes. I am just using moral relativism as a way to nullify an argument because it doesn't account for moral relativism is all. I'm relativist in the sense that I don't think there's any one way of thinking properly, obviously you'd agree with that statement. A guy who think killing is fine and dandy and moral is crazy. Still, gather enough of them up and you'll have a culture of a different moral, and that was my point. Morals are all about the culture you live in, and in this one I share most of the morals and one of them is that public nudity is odd and unwanted. In places and situations that allow for it, go ahead women. Bare breasts, but let's keep this argument sane and rhetorically sensible.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm relativist in the sense that I don't think there's any one way of thinking properly, obviously you'd agree with that statement. A guy who think killing is fine and dandy and moral is crazy. Still, gather enough of them up and you'll have a culture of a different moral, and that was my point.

And in this particular sense, that culture would be inferior to the culture I live in, where people who think killing is fine and dandy are locked up in prisons. The fact that it changes from culture to culture doesn't mean we can't make value judgments about which moral statements are good and which are shit. Morality is not a democracy; there are correct moral positions and there are incorrect ones.

A moral statement that tells me that men can bare their breasts but women can't--that's shit.

In places and situations that allow for it, go ahead women. Bare breasts, but let's keep this argument sane and rhetorically sensible.

I'm sure that they appreciate you giving them the go-ahead. But once again, I think this is a decision that they should be making.

[Wodashin]

I didn't mean that in a way that I was giving permission. My post isn't to be deconstructed like a book. There's nothing in between the lines. This thread is about giving women the right to bare breasts, and I'm saying that I'm apathetic to the whole deal.

Secondly, you say that 'A moral statement that tells me that men can bare their breasts but women can't--that's shit.', maybe women should be making this decision for themselves, and not you? I don't think your morals are more important than those of the women this is about. I don't seriously mean any of that, I'm just making a point that you shouldn't keep putting words in my mouth and defaming me. I don't really like it; it's condescending.

So, if you want to get into all this morality stuff, what about practicing Muslim women? In some countries, they can't openly practice their religion because it goes against the rights that country thinks they should have. Is that moral?

[The Great Hippo]

Secondly, you say that 'A moral statement that tells me that men can bare their breasts but women can't--that's shit.', maybe women should be making this decision for themselves, and not you? I don't think your morals are more important than those of the women this is about.

Again, that is moral relativism. This isn't me asserting my morality over women; this is me pointing out which moral position is correct and which moral position is incorrect. That is to say, on the issue of whether or not women should be allowed to bare their breasts, there is a morally correct answer and there is a morally incorrect answer. If a woman wanted to restrict the right of other women to bare their breasts, she would be wrong. If 99% of women throughout the world wanted to restrict the rights of that remaining 1% to bare their breasts, they would still be wrong. Morality isn't a democracy.

So, if you want to get into all this morality stuff, what about practicing Muslim women? In some countries, they can't openly practice their religion because it goes against the rights that country thinks they should have. Is that moral?

It depends on what practice you're discussing. If you're referring to the wearing of the burqa, absolutely not; it is immoral to tell women what they can and can't wear. The right of a woman to cover herself is as sacred as the right to bare herself.

[Mavketl]

It has to do with the argument on the first page about 'I want to have my cake and eat it too.'. We're actually off-topic a bit. I was being on topic.

Right, on topic, then.

To have one's cake and eat it too is a popular English idiomatic proverb or figure of speech, sometimes stated as eat one's cake and have it too or simply have one's cake and eat it. This is most often used negatively, meaning an individual owning a thing, and still attempting to benefit from or use it. It may also indicate having or wanting more than one can handle or deserve, or trying to have two incompatible things. The proverb's meaning is similar to the phrases, "you can't have it both ways" and "you can't have the best of both worlds."

Note how there is a negative connotation to trying to "have one's cake and eat it too". If you say that someone who would like to have bare breasts and also wants people to not stare at her is trying to have their cake and eat it too, you mean that wanting both of those things is bad or stupid or "more than they can handle or deserve". You're saying that there is something wrong with what they want.

And that is exactly the thing that people are taking issue with.

[Wodashin]

I think that, as a man, you don't get to say what is morally correct on the stance of baring breasts. I don't really think that, I just feel like saying things like that because I really want to point out that twisting words isn't nice. You can have an opinion, and you are right, but that's my opinion too. So, I don't see why you've been pointing out that I have no say when you yourself do say.

Morality is based on culture. It isn't so much a democracy as it is inherent within the peoples of a culture. If 99% of woman thought baring breasts was disgusting, they ARE right. If it were like that, culture would be built around that in that hypothetical universe. In OUR culture, if 99% of women suddenly decided that baring breasts was wrong, they'd be wrong because our culture is based on rights and such. The current law is wrong from a cultural standpoint. From a different culture's point of view, our law might not be restrictive enough. Does that make that culture wrong? Does it make them inferior? No. It makes them right, but only within their culture.

[The Great Hippo]

I think that, as a man, you don't get to say what is morally correct on the stance of baring breasts. I don't really think that, I just feel like saying things like that because I really want to point out that twisting words isn't nice. You can have an opinion, and you are right, but that's my opinion too. So, I don't see why you've been pointing out that I have no say when you yourself do say.

Because the right to our own bodies--and by consequence, the right to what we put on and take off of those bodies--is a fundamental human right. Laws which impede this right without good cause (such as protecting some other right) are unjust.

From a different culture's point of view, our law might not be restrictive enough. Does that make that culture wrong?

On this topic, yes. Absolutely. We can talk about morality outside of the context of the culture that created that morality--so long as our primary concern is with humans and their prosperity.

[Wodashin]

I don't get you. I say, quite literally, the exact same thing and you go on about how I can't really talk about it. That I'm not a woman, why should I pretend like I have a say? I go back and do the same to you, and you do it back unto me as if the rule only applies to others. It's hypocritical and condescending, and I don't think it's purposeful, but I feel it's creating a hostile environment.

There are cultures where cannibalism is fine and dandy. It's the norm. In fact, it's your moral obligation as a member of the tribe to do so. Is it morally wrong?

We're so off topic. The topic is 'having your cake and eating it too'. I've made comments on this, but we seem to be focused on going off on tangents.

[Mavketl]

We're so off topic. The topic is 'having your cake and eating it too'. I've made comments on this, but we seem to be focused on going off on tangents.

Well, I've tried that one, and you didn't seem particularly interested... so you can hardly blame TGH for commenting on more tangentially related stuff.

[Azrael]

The topic is 'having your cake and eating it too'

No, it isn't. That is a witty quip in a thread title.

The topic is the Topfree Movement and all things related.

I feel this should be readily apparent.

[Wodashin]

I've just been more engrossed in that series of questions though is all. I never blamed him, I did not say 'you' to him.

Really though, gawkers are gonna gawk. Gawkers are jerkfaces, they are also unstoppable. They can gawk if they want. You can be uncomfortable, but they aren't doing anything illegal, unless we make 'gawking' illegal. Cat calls, I'm not sure how those work legally. I'm sure if they get too racy some legal action can be taken.

What do we say on touch? A guy can push a man's naked chest, and it isn't sexual harassment. Would a minor scuffle on the beach be sexual harassment?

There's nothing wrong with having one's cake and eating it too. In fact, I've never really liked the phrase. Perhaps it isn't the correct phrase. There's nothing wrong with baring breasts in situations where it is suitable. If it were legal, breasts would still be sexualized, just not as much. Polite society doesn't allow for half naked men.

It is silly though to think that you can stop people from looking. If you're sunbathing on the beach with your bare breasts, prepare to be looked at by men. They can take your picture if they want. You have no right to take away their rights. You have the right to complain though. I'm not sure there would be many gawkers though.

I don't see the fuss here. I think this is just everyone agreeing on the main point and arguing about things that don't really matter to the main point.

[PAstrychef]

There are cultures where bare breasts are the norm. So the automatic sexualization of public boobs is hardly automatic.
And if you're indifferent to the topic, why are you still posting here?

[Wodashin]

Eh, it the talking interests me. I don't have a stake in the topic, and no males do, as said by TGH, but this thread is interesting.

Boobs are automatically sexual in our culture though. There are cultures where things that are more than taboo here are the norm. I don't buy into the 'Changing our taboos' argument. If you let it work in this one, it is hypocritical to not allow it in others, in my opinion.

Why don't we just go the whole way and say we all go nude when the weather allows it? There's nothing wrong about that is there? There is to me, but for the sake of argument, why not go all the way?

Also, what of children? Guys can take pictures at the pool or beach. There are male children, and they just wear trunks. How do child pornography laws work into this bare breasts thing?

[The Great Hippo]

I don't get you. I say, quite literally, the exact same thing and you go on about how I can't really talk about it. That I'm not a woman, why should I pretend like I have a say?

You shouldn't get a say in what women get to wear. Only women--as in, each individual woman--should have a say, and only for themselves. That's the distinction you're failing to make.

My position is: "Everyone should be able to wear what they want". When you reply: "It's cold around here, and women's breasts are more sensitive, why should we bother repealing laws that don't let them go topless?"--my response is to say: "Let the women make that decision". Not 'women' as in: "let's stick all the women inside a room and have them decide if we should repeal the law". 'Women' as in: "Let's repeal the law and let each individual woman make that decision for herself".

Boobs are automatically sexual in our culture though. There are cultures where things that are more than taboo here are the norm. I don't buy into the 'Changing our taboos' argument. If you let it work in this one, it is hypocritical to not allow it in others, in my opinion.

A taboo is not automatically a moral transgression. I have no problem with the idea of dismantling taboos that are morally irrelevant.

Why don't we just go the whole way and say we all go nude when the weather allows it? There's nothing wrong about that is there? There is to me, but for the sake of argument, why not go all the way?

No, there's nothing morally wrong with that.

[Wodashin]

I didn't say nudity was morally wrong. I'm sorry for not making that clear. I think that it's a bit unsettling, but not immoral or anything like that. Still, why not go all the way. Why not make genitalia the norm? The freedom to go nude.

Still, I'm concerned as to how this works out on child pornography laws.

[The Great Hippo]

Still, why not go all the way. Why not make genitalia the norm? The freedom to go nude.

Yes. Why not? I'd be fine with that; although I don't think it's a transition that would happen successfully overnight (or even in a few decades).

Still, I'm concerned as to how this works out on child pornography laws.

That's a kerfluffle for a whole different thread.

[GenericAnimeBoy]

If I'm honest, I personally feel about equally comfortable with toplessness for both sexes (which is not to say I'm entirely comfortable with either). So here's an unusual approach to the problem: Ask yourself the question, "Is the bare male chest really any less sexually provocative than the female chest"? Go to the bad literature section of your local grocery/supermarket/bookstore and take a look at the cover art on the romance novels. Can you still definitively answer "yes" to that question?

Points being that:

• All toplessness is mildly provocative. If we judge, as a society, that women can deal with seeing barechested men, men can deal with seeing barechested women
• Possibly TMI:
  Spoiler:

  I personally prefer to swim without a shirt, in trunks, despite the fact that I have a no-pack and people probably laugh behind my back at my pale, scrawny body. For me the physical comfort issue is more important than my insecurities. I see no reason why women shouldn't be permitted to make that same judgment call.
• You have a right to control what you do or do not put on your body, but you don't have a right to dictate what (mostly involuntarily) goes through my head when I see it. Guys who catcall and gawk at women are jerks, but only because they're being terribly rude. Thought != Crime.
• Women's swimsuit tops are already tops in name only...which is to say they don't leave much of anything to the imagination. Topless isn't all that different. Go to the beach in (some places in) Europe if you don't believe me.
• Those same countries in Europe have top-required areas. Some people are uncomfortable with nudity. They have a right to public spaces, too.