InnerPhyre
Well-Known Member
We are talking about the issue of 2 people going outside without shirts on...a woman and a man. The woman is arrested and the man is ignored. I think you may be comparing apples and oranges.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
and a guy working outside with no pants on would also be in trouble so where is the sexism in that?
Rubbish. You are comparing apples and oranges. I am comparing a woman going outside not covering areas that generally are considered private and a man going outside and not covering areas that are generally considered private. In that there is no sexism in this case. If a mans sex organs were on his chest then you would be right in your claim. If you can't see that then you must deliberately be ignoring it. Note in the law it specifies sex and excretion organs. Not once does it say only womens sex and excretion organs. As I pointed out previously and people want to ignore because it suits them it has always been clear than men do not reveal their penis in public. There has been no grey area in this. If part of the penis is showing it is considered unacceptable. What has not always been clear is how much breast is acceptable. In this case I think they have gone too far but I think it is good that they have clarified exactly what they mean. This means people won't get in trouble for doing the wrong thing when they think they are doing the right thing. That is actually good common sense just like a government that defined in law what is smacking a child and what is child abuse. It just makes it clear what people can and can't do. Before that people who smacked their child were getting arrested not realising they were doing anything wrong according to the law.We are talking about the issue of 2 people going outside without shirts on...a woman and a man. The woman is arrested and the man is ignored. I think you may be comparing apples and oranges.
I don't think you see any exposed breasts at beaches or in public in US. I could be wrong, yes many Americans would care enough to protest if wearing no clothes in public was allowed.The law is completely out of touch. Do most people even care about this? Nope. Exposed breasts in public are not something to legislate over. Go to any beach in Europe and see the droves of topless women and the indifference of people towards it and you will see that exposed breasts, aside from the initial shock factor, are no harm to society.
N.C. House bill: No bare breasts in public | CharlotteObserver.com
This is pretty insane.
then that would actuallt be sexist if you don't make laws regarding women in swimwear as well.I think we can all agree that moobs should be also be included in this bill--and fat guys in speedos too.
Rubbish. You are comparing apples and oranges. I am comparing a woman going outside not covering areas that generally are considered private and a man going outside and not covering areas that are generally considered private. In that there is no sexism in this case. If a mans sex organs were on his chest then you would be right in your claim. If you can't see that then you must deliberately be ignoring it. Note in the law it specifies sex and excretion organs. Not once does it say only womens sex and excretion organs. As I pointed out previously and people want to ignore because it suits them it has always been clear than men do not reveal their penis in public. There has been no grey area in this. If part of the penis is showing it is considered unacceptable.
then that would actuallt be sexist if you don't make laws regarding women in swimwear as well.
Note in the law it specifies sex and excretion organs. Not once does it say only womens sex and excretion organs.
I think we can all agree that moobs should be also be included in this bill--and fat guys in speedos too.
I think the larger problem here is the sexualization of the female breast thanks largely (but not solely) to the pornography industry which treats women as objects with no purpose other than satisfying the base desires of men.
Are those the tears of the politicians who drafted this bill because someone somewhere saw a boob?
Rion said:How about: If it jiggles, it has to be covered up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?