Topfree Equality Day

[Archivist]

Where were they marching? My big worry is that it could cause a distraction to folks who are driving, cause accidents. If they were at places where it's OK for us to be topless, a park, a beach, then OK.

Isn't that the fault of the driver?

 

[Go Braves]

Isn't that the fault of the driver?

Idk. It's instinctive to be distracted by such distractions. Folks can be considerate of others while still making their own point. Having it at a beach, inside a park, places like that where you're not going to have a bunch of drivers nearby would be wiser.

 

[Archivist]

Idk. It's instinctive to be distracted by such distractions. Folks can be considerate of others while still making their own point. Having it at a beach, inside a park, places like that where you're not going to have a bunch of drivers nearby would be wiser.

I'm sure that the location varied depending on the city. My guess is that many more accidents are caused by changing CDs or chatting with passengers in the car than by topless protestors.

 

[Go Braves]

I'm sure that the location varied depending on the city. My guess is that many more accidents are caused by changing CDs or chatting with passengers in the car than by topless protestors.

Well of course ordinary distractions that happen every single day are going to lead to more accidents than extraordinary ones, on account of the frequency. Though seeing as how CDs are archaic maybe somebody changing them counts as something out of the ordinary, lol. Still the point remains that it would be more logical & considerate to have the protests confined to areas that are least likely to cause such distractions. That's just common sense. Surely you can see that? I haven't got any beef against the protests themselves, just saying I think it's best to go about having them some basic courtesy & sense to others. I'm surprised by your responses to tell you the truth, I'd have thought you'd have agreed on that.

 

[Chesterton]

Holy smokes man. Say whatever you want, but personally, I'd never call something "creepy" what the Lord had called good.

I didn't say the human body was creepy.

God made us, and originally intended for us to be nude. Just my opinion, but you do you.

By that logic, strip clubs and hardcore pornography are "good".

 

[Chesterton]

Doesn't it "violate other people's standards" if men go topless in public?

Depends on the situation. Like that time I showed up shirtless at my cousin Billy's funeral. I was trying to explain that Billy was a laid-back kind of guy who wouldn't mind, but these uptight people were acting all violated-y.

 

[Archivist]

I didn't say the human body was creepy.

So what is "creepy" about the thread. We are discussing something that is largely a matter of culture, not morality. There is nothing in scripture that says that women shouldn't go topless. Ethiopia has one of the oldest Christian churches the world, yet women there have historically gone topless.

By that logic, strip clubs and hardcore pornography are "good".

But that isn't what we are discussing in this thread.

 

[Archivist]

Depends on the situation. Like that time I showed up shirtless at my cousin Billy's funeral. I was trying to explain that Billy was a laid-back kind of guy who wouldn't mind, but these uptight people were acting all violated-y.

Men usually don't go topless at funerals. We are talking about women going topless where men commonly go topless--beaches, parks, pools, ball games, etc.

 

[Chesterton]

So what is "creepy" about the thread. We are discussing something that is largely a matter of culture, not morality. There is nothing in scripture that says that women shouldn't go topless. Ethiopia has one of the oldest Christian churches the world, yet women there have historically gone topless.

For the sake of discussion, I'll agree with you that it's a matter of culture, not morality. That doesn't make it right. I'll make a comparison. There are many places in the Middle East where it is offensive to show the bottom of your foot/shoe to another person. People will not sit in a chair so that their leg is perpendicular to the ground, and thereby exposing the bottom of the foot to another person.

Now you or I might think that's silly. There's nothing immoral about it, and you're not doing it to offend anyone. But that doesn't matter. If you don't know the majority standards of decency, and show your foot, that's forgivable. But if you do know, and do it anyway, you are committing an offense against decency, IMO.

And a note regarding "activism": a person may say to themselves "the local custom about feet is stupid and irrational, and these people shouldn't think that, so I'm going to show my foot, and I'm going on crusade to convince these people that they're wrong and I'm right." This type of activism, IMO, is completely arrogant and wrong. The majority consensus of a culture is determined by democracy, otherwise it wouldn't be the majority consensus. To attack it is being elitist and saying that you know better than everyone else, and the majority needs to conform to your will.

But that isn't what we are discussing in this thread.

I think the same logic applies. We don't have bowel movements in public view either, just because God made bodies that do that.

Men usually don't go topless at funerals.

Why not? The bible doesn't say we shouldn't.

 

[Tetra]

I didn't say the human body was creepy.

My mistake... what in the world is "creepy" about this thread then?

 

[Chesterton]

My mistake... what in the world is "creepy" about this thread then?

If a female made these kinds of threads, I still wouldn't understand the motivation, and I'd think it was odd. If a male makes these kinds of threads, I think it's both odd and creepy.

 

[Tetra]

If a female made these kinds of threads, I still wouldn't understand the motivation, and I'd think it was odd. If a male makes these kinds of threads, I think it's both odd and creepy.

That really doesn't explain why you think it's "creepy".

 

[Chesterton]

That really doesn't explain why you think it's "creepy".

It's kind of hard to answer without insulting someone, and I don't want to get reported, so if you're actually curious, and you actually can't figure it out on your own, send me a PM and I'll answer.

 

[Tetra]

It's kind of hard to answer without insulting someone, and I don't want to get reported, so if you're actually curious, and you actually can't figure it out on your own, send me a PM and I'll answer.

No, I honestly can't figure out what would be creepy about a thread on equality.

Before we get deeper into it, I'll preface this by saying we live in Ontario where it's legal for women to be topless, and my wife in fact does go topless outside on occasion. Neither of us thinks this is creepy or the topic creepy. If you can't discuss this without saying something to get you reported, I'd rather not PM about it.

 

[dayhiker]

Early on in this thread there was a comment about Christian art and nudity. I once came across a web page that had a whole lot of early Christian art that had a lot of nudity in it. Even today in Europe there is a lot of churches that have nudes in their paintings one can see touring there.
My experience has been people that go nude have a lot less problems with body image than those who were clothes all the time. Likewise those that see a lot of nude bodies fine it becomes no big deal. So its healthier all around for people to get topless and to see topless people.

 

[JackRT]

Canada has the right to bare breasts but the USA has the right to bear arms.

 

[Tetra]

Canada has the right to bare breasts but the USA has the right to bear arms.

As a gun lover, I wish we had both!

 

[Archivist]

For the sake of discussion, I'll agree with you that it's a matter of culture, not morality. That doesn't make it right. I'll make a comparison. There are many places in the Middle East where it is offensive to show the bottom of your foot/shoe to another person. People will not sit in a chair so that their leg is perpendicular to the ground, and thereby exposing the bottom of the foot to another person.

Now you or I might think that's silly. There's nothing immoral about it, and you're not doing it to offend anyone. But that doesn't matter. If you don't know the majority standards of decency, and show your foot, that's forgivable. But if you do know, and do it anyway, you are committing an offense against decency, IMO.

And a note regarding "activism": a person may say to themselves "the local custom about feet is stupid and irrational, and these people shouldn't think that, so I'm going to show my foot, and I'm going on crusade to convince these people that they're wrong and I'm right." This type of activism, IMO, is completely arrogant and wrong. The majority consensus of a culture is determined by democracy, otherwise it wouldn't be the majority consensus. To attack it is being elitist and saying that you know better than everyone else, and the majority needs to conform to your will.

Except men were once barred from going topless in many places in the US. Despite objection from several me people those laws were abolished. Today it is commonplace for men to go topless.

I think the same logic applies. We don't have bowel movements in public view either, just because God made bodies that do that.

There are sanitary reasons to not have bowel movements in public, none of which apply here.

 

[Archivist]

If a female made these kinds of threads, I still wouldn't understand the motivation, and I'd think it was odd. If a male makes these kinds of threads, I think it's both odd and creepy.

I live the n a state where women have the right to go topless anyplace a man can. Very few do. At least the ones who do don’t get hauled off to jail and get locked up.

 

[Sam91]

Aww poor Chesterton.

I might not use the word creepy but I do say it is discomforting how often this topic comes up on a Christian website. Then to see jokes, which are not so different to the world view, is disheartening. I do not know what these threads are to achieve but I don't think it is in line with philippians 4:8.

I do find that there are bible verses speaking of shame where breasts are displayed:

Ezekiel 16:7-8 God metaphorically covered Jerusalem's nakedness.
Ezekiel 16:22 Spoken of being naked and bare in a negative way. Infact, please read the chapter.

Hosea 2:2 mentions adulteries between her breasts.. Hosea 2:3 says that Israel will be striiped naked to expose her shame.

Maybe it is easier for men to read these verses and not find them significant enough to translate into verses about modesty. However, as a woman, reading those chapters have given a keen sense of what shame it is to be stripped or to have clothes taken away. I can actually feel shame between my breasts when reading the verse of Israel's adulteries quoted above. Maybe that empathy teaches something not so readily concieved by people who think that the Bible isn't explicit about this subject.

I also have a keen sense of how blessed Israel was to be clothed by the Lord Almighty.

With those foundations in place from reading the word, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I have a firm conviction that it is an honour and a blessing to be dressed and covered. That to be naked through not my own choice would be terribly shaming. Personally, while not wanting a christian lady who thinks different to feel judged, to choose to do so myself would make me feel like the ladies warned about in proverbs 5. (I know that is also quite figurative.)

These metaphors are there for good reason. Not everything needs to be spelled out in the Bible. Some things are a given. By the fact female nudity is used as a metaphor one can deduce that it is an honour to be adequately clothed and a disgrace not to be. So we should be grateful to have clothes.

While not wanting to sound harsh I feel gravely, and somberly, that this is a trickery of the age that we are caught up in, that we could justify public Christian nudity. That we could say things like 'if it was the norm people wouldn't feel lust'. We are taught the story of Adam and Eve. Once they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they felt shame. That was coupled with being naked. Babies and toddlers enjoy being naked, they are innocent. Still learning good and evil. Then we clothe them. Like God clothed Adam and Eve, He clothed Israel.

As a 'temple of the Holy Spirit' it would not feel right to dress, or undress, in such a way to invite men to look upon me in a leering and disrespectful way. God indwells us Christians. We can not say that is someone else wrongdoing and not also our own. We know that we are to steer clear of sexual immorality and impurity. To invite it in others because of lack of due care isn't loving thy neighbour. We do have that duty. Paul was all things to all men. Peter said that we were to live beyond the reproach of those around us (1 Peter 2:11-12) If you couple that with our Saviour's warning about the dangers of lust (Matthew 5:28-29) we would be showing double standards to those who have heard that verse; inviting them to say that we are hypocrites.

The terms in the Bible 'looked (or uncovered) on ... nakedness' people say means had relations with. I say that the metaphor would not be used if there was not the message that nakedness is to be synonymous with sin or shame. I feel that it is a deception to be lead to think otherwise.