Isn't this a bit sexist?

[TheDag]

what i find interesting is that people think a woman would be charged if her nipples were to accidently fall out of her top and think that is unfair but if a guys penis accidently got revealed in front of a child he would be charged with statutory rape, labelled a sex offende and that is perfectly fair.

 

[TheDag]

What the heck is this rant even about? I never said there was no difference between men and women. Just because we are different, doesn't mean we don't deserve the same rights. Medicine is not law. Would you like to argue that although African Americans are more susceptible to certain health problems than Caucasians, focusing more on those health problems for them is racist? Because that's pretty much your argument, just with gender instead of race.

Seriously, what?

I'll just address this one point seem as you have totally missed the point. The whole point is that mens and womens bodies are different. Therefore what is considered modest for men can be different to women and it is not sexist.
You are the one arguing they should be treated exactly the same despite obvious differences so no you are the one arguing focusing on health problems that african americans are more susceptible to is racist. I am arguing those differences mean something and it is not discrimination. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
This law is not changing anything. It is only clarification of existing laws. Women going topless is not considered the norm in the area the story is about. Wearing skimpy clothing is fine according to existing law and also according to clarification law being made. If you want to change that view then go ahead. If you want to use the women voting situation as an anology then please tell me did women just suddenly walk into a polling booth and start voting or did they change the law and societties view on the matter. If you are honest then you will acknowledge it was the latter.

 

[Jade Margery]

I'll just address this one point seem as you have totally missed the point. The whole point is that mens and womens bodies are different. Therefore what is considered modest for men can be different to women and it is not sexist.

Are these, or are these not your views? It's a simple yes-or-no question.

a) It is not okay to outlaw certain kinds of swimwear for men to wear unless you also make rules about certain kinds of swimwear for women, because it would be sexist.

b) It is okay to outlaw certain kinds of tops (or lack thereof) for women while not making rules about tops for men. That's not sexist at all.
​

This law is not changing anything. It is only clarification of existing laws. Women going topless is not considered the norm in the area the story is about. Wearing skimpy clothing is fine according to existing law and also according to clarification law being made. If you want to change that view then go ahead. If you want to use the women voting situation as an anology then please tell me did women just suddenly walk into a polling booth and start voting or did they change the law and societties view on the matter. If you are honest then you will acknowledge it was the latter.

Your knowledge of history is almost as bad as your grammar.

Edit: To be perfectly fair, I see you are from Australia, and since I don't know anything about Australian women's suffrage, it's not right to assume you would know about American women's suffrage. I apologize for the assumption. Suffice to say though, that walking into a polling place and voting while it was against the law was one of the earliest tactics used by women fighting for their rights. It's called 'civil disobedience', and is a popular tactic in pretty much all civil rights fights.

United States v. Susan B. Anthony

Susan B. Anthony, ca 1900
On November 18, 1872, Anthony was arrested by a U.S. Deputy Marshal for voting on November 5 in the 1872 Presidential Election two weeks earlier.[18] She had written to Stanton on the night of the election that she had "positively voted the Republican ticket—straight...". She was tried and convicted seven months later, despite the stirring and eloquent presentation of her arguments that the recently adopted Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you are honest, you will acknowledge that I am right. The law, as stated, is sexist, regardless of what societal expectations it is based on.

 

[TheDag]

Edit: To be perfectly fair, I see you are from Australia, and since I don't know anything about Australian women's suffrage, it's not right to assume you would know about American women's suffrage. I apologize for the assumption. Suffice to say though, that walking into a polling place and voting while it was against the law was one of the earliest tactics used by women fighting for their rights. It's called 'civil disobedience', and is a popular tactic in pretty much all civil rights fights.

I will happily acknowledge you are correct if you can answer the following question. Why did Susan B Anthony continue to campaign for women to be allowed to vote if as you claim women were given the vote by her walking into a polling booth and voting in 1872? My answer would be they did not gain the right to vote by that act but rather due to a change in legislation that came later. Please explain why I am wrong and that the law changed by the simple act of her walking into the polling booth.

We can not continue on any other point untill you understand there are differences in anatomy and as a result differences require different treatment. Same as people wit hdisabilities are considered to have equal rights but treatment is different. For example they have equal right to be able to enter public buildings. However to ensure the equality we make special rules for them. By your definition of what equal means we should be saying to people in wheelchairs "Use the stairs like everybody else". my definition means that we make rules saying ramps and/or lifts must be provided even though others are perfectly capable of using the stairs. Same as we provide parking spaces to ensure they are able to access places safely. Likewise in this scenario the laws require guys to cover their backside and penis and women to cover their niples and vagina. Exact same outcome in that parts society generally considers should be covered are and not care about the rest. The clarification law that aims to clarify exisitng law acknowledges that there certainly are reasons where it is justified for women to not have their niples covered. It makes no such allowance for men. That raises a question doesn't it. Why aren't you arguing the law is sexist against men? Simple answer: It doesn't suit you to argue that because you would rather by hypocritcal in your belief on this matter.

Are these, or are these not your views? It's a simple yes-or-no question.

a) It is not okay to outlaw certain kinds of swimwear for men to wear unless you also make rules about certain kinds of swimwear for women, because it would be sexist.

b) It is okay to outlaw certain kinds of tops (or lack thereof) for women while not making rules about tops for men. That's not sexist at all.​

​

Ah the old lets change the person stances and ask a direct question trick. By putting my view into two statements like you have makes it appear different to what I am actually saying. Not to mention you left part of my view out because it does not suit you to include it. When your happy to stop misrepresenting me I will happily answer the question. However the way you have presented it here distorts what I have said into something else.

 

[Jade Margery]

I will happily acknowledge you are correct if you can answer the following question. Why did Susan B Anthony continue to campaign for women to be allowed to vote if as you claim women were given the vote by her walking into a polling booth and voting in 1872? My answer would be they did not gain the right to vote by that act but rather due to a change in legislation that came later. Please explain why I am wrong and that the law changed by the simple act of her walking into the polling booth.

Yes, I'm sure the tactics used to fight for equal rights have nothing to do with achieving those equal rights. (Sarcasm, in case that went over your head)



Oh, and do directly quote the portion where I said that walking into a poll booth granted women voting rights. It is such delicious irony that you were the one accusing me of lacking reading comprehension a few short posts ago.

We can not continue on any other point untill you understand there are differences in anatomy and as a result differences require different treatment.

Yes to the first, no to the second as it applies to law.

Same as people wit hdisabilities are considered to have equal rights but treatment is different. For example they have equal right to be able to enter public buildings. However to ensure the equality we make special rules for them. By your definition of what equal means we should be saying to people in wheelchairs "Use the stairs like everybody else". my definition means that we make rules saying ramps and/or lifts must be provided even though others are perfectly capable of using the stairs. Same as we provide parking spaces to ensure they are able to access places safely.

Actually, those laws are about establishing equality DESPITE differences. Everyone should be able to enter public establishments regardless of ability, for instance. Or, say, everyone should be able to go about topless if they wish regardless of chest size.

Likewise in this scenario the laws require guys to cover their backside and penis and women to cover their niples and vagina. Exact same outcome in that parts society generally considers should be covered are and not care about the rest. The clarification law that aims to clarify exisitng law acknowledges that there certainly are reasons where it is justified for women to not have their niples covered. It makes no such allowance for men. That raises a question doesn't it. Why aren't you arguing the law is sexist against men? Simple answer: It doesn't suit you to argue that because you would rather by hypocritcal in your belief on this matter.

So... you admit that it's sexist then? Because whether it's sexist to women or (somehow, in your twisted rational) to men, that's still sexism.

Ah the old lets change the person stances and ask a direct question trick. By putting my view into two statements like you have makes it appear different to what I am actually saying. Not to mention you left part of my view out because it does not suit you to include it. When your happy to stop misrepresenting me I will happily answer the question. However the way you have presented it here distorts what I have said into something else.

Ah, the old 'accuse your opponent of misrepresentation so you don't have to answer a difficult question' trick.

Well if I have distorted your views, this was your golden opportunity to answer 'no', and then clarify them. Color me un-surprised that you have refrained from doing so.

 

[Passionate Chicken]

what i find interesting is that people think a woman would be charged if her nipples were to accidently fall out of her top and think that is unfair but if a guys penis accidently got revealed in front of a child he would be charged with statutory rape, labelled a sex offende and that is perfectly fair.

Why yes, yes it is. And do you know why? Because in a stable society not afraid of women's breasts, those children who might happen to see a nipple on a woman stand to have suckled on one when they were infants.
The same can not be said if a limp phallus falls out of a man's too short shorts!

The penis, and this is why full frontal in anything but X rated porn is not seen in movies (for the most part), is considered to impact the viewer the same as showing a visual weapon. Because a penis penetrates.

Bruce Willis long ago made a movie wherein he insisted that he be allowed full frontal given his co-star was to be portrayed as such as well. He claimed it was fair and non-sexist. He was told it wouldn't be possible to show him for as long a period as the woman co-star for that very reason;the penis is construed in the psyche of women, and of course Hollywood censors obviously, as a weapon.

Whatever the case may be in whether or not there is truth to that, bare breasts stand to be, for the most part, far better looking if they are exposed than that what could stand to slip out of a man's shorts on any given day. So a perceived weapon or not may be a matter of question, while the aesthetic issue remains a constant.

 

[TheDag]

Ah, the old 'accuse your opponent of misrepresentation so you don't have to answer a difficult question' trick.

Well if I have distorted your views, this was your golden opportunity to answer 'no', and then clarify them. Color me un-surprised that you have refrained from doing so.

Actually I'm trying to get you to understand what is an essential part of my view. Until you do then there is no point in me repeating exactly what I have already said.

Actually, those laws are about establishing equality DESPITE differences. Everyone should be able to enter public establishments regardless of ability, for instance. Or, say, everyone should be able to go about topless if they wish regardless of chest size.

Yes but the fact still remains that you don't build a set of stairs so a person in a wheelchair can easily access a building. You do something different. Your view of equality would say you must build stairs so a person in a wheelchair can access a building or that it is illegal to build stairs to access a building you must only build a ramp and/or lifts. That is the equality you are arguing for. I am saying because of the differences there needs to be a different approach.

 

[TheDag]

Why yes, yes it is. And do you know why? Because in a stable society not afraid of women's breasts, those children who might happen to see a nipple on a woman stand to have suckled on one when they were infants.
The same can not be said if a limp phallus falls out of a man's too short shorts!

totally irrelevent what views or experience are. Fact is society generally sees both as unacceptable. It is not unusual for parents to shower with their kids when they are very young and need help. They see all then. So either it should be acceptable for a guy to have his penis hanging out or it should be accepted that penis and nipples generally are considered unacceptable. If people wish to change one of those views then go for it.

 

[Supreme]

Why yes, yes it is. And do you know why? Because in a stable society not afraid of women's breasts, those children who might happen to see a nipple on a woman stand to have suckled on one when they were infants.
The same can not be said if a limp phallus falls out of a man's too short shorts!

The penis, and this is why full frontal in anything but X rated porn is not seen in movies (for the most part), is considered to impact the viewer the same as showing a visual weapon. Because a penis penetrates.

Bruce Willis long ago made a movie wherein he insisted that he be allowed full frontal given his co-star was to be portrayed as such as well. He claimed it was fair and non-sexist. He was told it wouldn't be possible to show him for as long a period as the woman co-star for that very reason;the penis is construed in the psyche of women, and of course Hollywood censors obviously, as a weapon.

Whatever the case may be in whether or not there is truth to that, bare breasts stand to be, for the most part, far better looking if they are exposed than that what could stand to slip out of a man's shorts on any given day. So a perceived weapon or not may be a matter of question, while the aesthetic issue remains a constant.

This post cannot be serious. Did you just compare the human phallus to a murder weapon? And since when did weapons like swords never appear in mainstream films?

Although I do agree with you that kids are usually exposed to their mothers breasts from a very early age, and therefore breasts are unlikely to have much impact whatsoever.

 

[pgp_protector]

Would a pasty that covers the nipple, but look simular to a nipple violate the law?

 

[Wolseley]

I think we can all agree that moobs should be also be included in this bill--and fat guys in speedos too.

This all reminds me of a big brouhaha that went on when I was in high school. Somebody thought that it should only be fair to allow girls to play on the football team. There were arguments pro and con, and finally the pros won out. The cons then turned around and started flogging a rule that all players had to wear athletic supporters, and therefore, all girls on the team had to wear athletic supporters.

The pros then pointed out that that an athletic supporter is designed to protect the penis and testicles, and girls don't have those, so the idea was ridiculous. The cons won out on this point, however, so the pros then turned around and passed a resolution that all the boys on the team had to wear sanitary napkins and jogbras.

The whole thing turned into a moronic circus, had the whole county laughing at the idiots in the school administration. The kicker? None of the girls wanted to be on the football team in the first place. It was all a big manufactured controversy brought up by a liberal mama who wanted to make brownie points with her women's lib troop---and she didn't even have a daughter.

How about: If it jiggles, it has to be covered up.

So you get this, for both men and women?

Good luck with your suntan.

hey you put that bikini top back on you could hurt someone lol.

I suppose if one were endowed like, say, Dolly Parton or Kelly Brook, they could probably smother somebody to death.....

whatever the largest sex organ is, mine's the biggest

And then you wake up.

The penis, and this is why full frontal in anything but X rated porn is not seen in movies (for the most part), is considered to impact the viewer the same as showing a visual weapon. Because a penis penetrates.

Yeah, the woman is penetrated. But has anybody ever stopped to consider that it is the man who is swallowed??? Engulfed? Consumed? Absorbed?

Pretty terrifying, ain't it?

Bruce Willis long ago made a movie wherein he insisted that he be allowed full frontal given his co-star was to be portrayed as such as well. He claimed it was fair and non-sexist. He was told it wouldn't be possible to show him for as long a period as the woman co-star for that very reason;the penis is construed in the psyche of women, and of course Hollywood censors obviously, as a weapon.

I wonder how long it'll be before Dianne Feinstein wants to add the penis to the list of banned assault weapons?

Maybe they don't qualify, though.....I have yet to see one with a pistol grip, a large-capacity magazine, or a flash suppressor.

 

[Rion]

So you get this, for both men and women?

Good luck with your suntan.

It was a joke.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Would a pasty that covers the nipple, but look simular to a nipple violate the law?

You'd need another nipple-pasty to cover the original nipple-pasty, thus initiating an endless cycle.

Inception.

 

[pgp_protector]

You'd need another nipple-pasty to cover the original nipple-pasty, thus initiating an endless cycle.

Inception.

So nippleinception?

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

So nippleinception?

Precisely.

 

[pgp_protector]

Hmm would posting a close up of a man boob be a violation of forum rules?

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Hmm would posting a close up of a man boob be a violation of forum rules?

I wouldn't risk it.

 

[Rion]

Hmm would posting a close up of a man boob be a violation of forum rules?

That makes me think of that photoshop of a breast and lotus seed pod.

 

[All Englands Skies]

How is this sexist?

Why cover up at all, infact, why bother with trousers, I am sure people would love to see me walking around with my "man parts" dangling.

p.s is this just about nudee beaches or actually hitting the streets topless.

I am sure actually men being bare chested is considered indecent exposure here in the UK, only differance is, its not enforced and ignored when a man does it.

 

[TheDag]

Would a pasty that covers the nipple, but look simular to a nipple violate the law?

While I don't believe you were being serious when asking the question I will still give a serious answer. From my reading of the legislation no it would not be illegal according to that law. However there may be other laws covering obscene clothing which may or may not affect it. I haven't looked that in depth