Topfree Equality Day

[Chesterton]

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

No there aren't. Simply pick up after yourself, as I do when walking my dog.

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 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.

I showed you enough respect to try to respond to what you said seriously. You could at least show me the same respect and address what I said, instead of posting two short points which have nothing to do with my replies.

 

[Archivist]

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.

Why are you surprised? I said before that I don’t know where these protests were held. They may well have been in parks. However, it is the drivers fault if he or she isn’t watching the road. It isn’t the fault of someone who texts a driver who then has an accident, it is the fault of the driver for reading the text

 

[Chesterton]

Aww poor Chesterton.

I know, right?

I might not use the word creepy but I do say it is discomforting how often this topic comes up on a Christian website.

And it's not just that it comes up for discussion, but that the idea is actively promoted.

 

[Sam91]

I know, right?

And it's not just that it comes up for discussion, but that the idea is actively promoted.

So much so that I finally made a long post. I just hope that nobody is offended, I tried to speak tactfully but truthfully.

 

[Archivist]

No there aren't. Simply pick up after yourself, as I do when walking my dog.

Unfortunately plenty of folks don’t bother picking up after there dogs.

I can’t belueve that you are seriously comparing a woman going topfree with a person pooping in public. Does that same comparison work for men?

I showed you enough respect to try to respond to what you said seriously. You could at least show me the same respect and address what I said, instead of posting two short points which have nothing to do with my replies.

If you read what I posted you know that I did address what you said.

 

[Archivist]

I know, right?

And it's not just that it comes up for discussion, but that the idea is actively promoted.

Is it wrong for men to go topless in public? It was actively promoted that men should go topless back in the 1900s and the laws were changed. Was that wrong? Should we require that women cover their ankles? Their legs?

 

[Chesterton]

I can’t belueve that you are seriously comparing a woman going topfree with a person pooping in public. Does that same comparison work for men?

I think I'm done here, but before I go, and just out of morbid curiosity, why do use the contrived word "topfree" instead of "topless"? Is there some point to that Orwellian language manipulation?

 

[Go Braves]

Why are you surprised? I said before that I don’t know where these protests were held. They may well have been in parks. However, it is the drivers fault if he or she isn’t watching the road. It isn’t the fault of someone who texts a driver who then has an accident, it is the fault of the driver for reading the text

Surprised on account of how I'd always thought you were a reasonable fellow. Minimizing distractions is just a basic courtesy. Gracious.

 

[Archivist]

I think I'm done here, but before I go, and just out of morbid curiosity, why do use the contrived word "topfree" instead of "topless"? Is there some point to that Orwellian language manipulation?

Um, because it is a recognized word.
Check out your dictionary.com.

 

[Chesterton]

Um, because it is a recognized word.
Check out your dictionary.com.

https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=topfree&s=t

lol "No results found for topfree"

 

[Archivist]

Surprised on account of how I'd always thought you were a reasonable fellow. Minimizing distractions is just a basic courtesy. Gracious.

And, again, we don’t know where these demonstrations took place. It may well have been in a park. However my drivers manual says that the fault for distracted driving is with the driver.

 

[Archivist]

https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=topfree&s=t

lol "No results found for topfree"

I said before, try your dictionary.com. If you do a google search for “your dictionary” you will find it.

 

[Sam91]

I said before, try your dictionary.com. If you do a google search for “your dictionary” you will find it.

I can not find 'topfree' in reputable dictionaries. They correct it to topless. Wikipedia and urban dictionary, while not dictionaries, align the word with the political movement.

I think topfree is a clever change of word. It is trying to step away from the trashy connotations of the word topless and cashing in on all the other freedom movements of the times. Some of which are also very unbiblical

 

[Go Braves]

And, again, we don’t know where these demonstrations took place. It may well have been in a park. However my drivers manual says that the fault for distracted driving is with the driver.

Well, that's why the first thing I did was ask you about where they took place. I'm pretty sure that most cities have some common sense rules when it comes to giving permits for protests, to minimize things like creating major distractions for drivers. And yes, a bunch of bare chested folks would cause much more of a distraction than routine things like texting. C'mon now.

Edit to add, just looked, as I thought, the protests were held at parks & beaches. Not in places likely to cause major distractions to drivers & places where fellows are often without a shirt.

 

[Darkhorse]

Sam91, that was a very well-written and well-thought-out post. While I agree with much of it, I have been an unabashed advocate for innocent non-sexual nudity most of my life, for those desiring it, while trying to not offend those who don't.

In Ezekiel 16, the baby/girl/woman represents Israel, whom God adopted as a helpless infant, raised and nurtured to adulthood, and married, only to suffer from Israel's "adulterous" relationships with other nations (consisting mostly of idol worship). In verses 7-9 the young woman's nudity is described in terms of beauty, not shame. Some versions of the NIV have the phrase "You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels" in verse 7. In verse 8 when God "spread the corner of His garment" over her to cover her nakedness, it's not because her nakedness was shameful, it was God claiming her as His bride (the "covering the nakedness" idiom, referring to sex). The phrase "uncover the nakedness of" is an old euphemism for "have sexual intercourse with", much as we say "sleep with" today.

Her adultery begins in verse 15, and the references to nakedness after that point are indeed shameful, as they should be.


With Adam and Eve, Genesis describes their first emotion after eating the fruit as "fear", not "shame". Of course, both are understandable, since they had just disobeyed God, whom they knew "face to face", and were tricked by a serpent! They, not God, had a problem with their nakedness. He was so unconcerned with it that He asked Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" In other words, "why are you giving me a lame excuse like that for hiding from me?" God replaced their flimsy fig-leaf aprons with fur garments to protect them from the "thorns and thistles", cold, abrasion, and wild animals they would encounter in the now-fallen world. Clothes were their idea. not God's.

We are all blessed to be clothed by God, but the only clothing that really counts is the Righteousness of Christ.


Regarding being nude as "A trickery of the age", perhaps my words sound like the serpent in the garden. I hope not, but I can understand if you have your doubts.
I wish you could meet my two sons, who were raised as both Christians and nudists, and find no conflict between the two. They are in their 20s now, both are still virgins, and they have no desire to look at porn (in fact, they avoid it totally). We would not have raised them as nudists if it were not a Godly and healthful environment.

I know it's very difficult (maybe impossible) to imagine being nude with 200 other nude people and not having it be a "strip club" environment. But it is possible, and happens every day. Being a Christian helps a lot, but even most non-Christians behave themselves, once they understand that sex is "off the table" and will not be considered in this setting. The rules for good behavior are the same, whether nude or clothed.


I don't expect any of this to change your mind, but I wanted to explain my perspective, hopefully as well as you explained yours.

 

[Sam91]

Sam91, that was a very well-written and well-thought-out post. While I agree with much of it, I have been an unabashed advocate for innocent non-sexual nudity most of my life, for those desiring it, while trying to not offend those who don't.

In Ezekiel 16, the baby/girl/woman represents Israel, whom God adopted as a helpless infant, raised and nurtured to adulthood, and married, only to suffer from Israel's "adulterous" relationships with other nations (consisting mostly of idol worship). In verses 7-9 the young woman's nudity is described in terms of beauty, not shame. Some versions of the NIV have the phrase "You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels" in verse 7. In verse 8 when God "spread the corner of His garment" over her to cover her nakedness, it's not because her nakedness was shameful, it was God claiming her as His bride (the "covering the nakedness" idiom, referring to sex). The phrase "uncover the nakedness of" is an old euphemism for "have sexual intercourse with", much as we say "sleep with" today.

Her adultery begins in verse 15, and the references to nakedness after that point are indeed shameful, as they should be.


With Adam and Eve, Genesis describes their first emotion after eating the fruit as "fear", not "shame". Of course, both are understandable, since they had just disobeyed God, whom they knew "face to face", and were tricked by a serpent! They, not God, had a problem with their nakedness. He was so unconcerned with it that He asked Adam: "Who told you that you were naked?" In other words, "why are you giving me a lame excuse like that for hiding from me?" God replaced their flimsy fig-leaf aprons with fur garments to protect them from the "thorns and thistles", cold, abrasion, and wild animals they would encounter in the now-fallen world. Clothes were their idea. not God's.

We are all blessed to be clothed by God, but the only clothing that really counts is the Righteousness of Christ.


Regarding being nude as "A trickery of the age", perhaps my words sound like the serpent in the garden. I hope not, but I can understand if you have your doubts.
I wish you could meet my two sons, who were raised as both Christians and nudists, and find no conflict between the two. They are in their 20s now, both are still virgins, and they have no desire to look at porn (in fact, they avoid it totally). We would not have raised them as nudists if it were not a Godly and healthful environment.

I know it's very difficult (maybe impossible) to imagine being nude with 200 other nude people and not having it be a "strip club" environment. But it is possible, and happens every day. Being a Christian helps a lot, but even most non-Christians behave themselves, once they understand that sex is "off the table" and will not be considered in this setting. The rules for good behavior are the same, whether nude or clothed.


I don't expect any of this to change your mind, but I wanted to explain my perspective, hopefully as well as you explained yours.

@Darkhorse thank you for not taking insult from my post while having differing views. It is still interesting to read your post to gain insight into how your faith aligns with your ideas. I still respect your opinions even though we differ because your maturity, kindness and purity of heart shows through in many of your posts on CF. It would be proud and unwise of me not to give your views the consideration that they deserve.

I do think nudist beaches is not the same as being out in public topless. It sounds like you describe a safer environment than out in the general public. I am heartened to hear that your boys are still virgins and do not find pornography a temptation.

I do have a question. I hope that you don't mind my asking.

As a man, who knows how men can think, would you have felt comfortable with nudist beaches had you raised girls instead of boys?

Also, I thought about being clothed in Christ while typing, so I'm glad that you did too.

 

[Darkhorse]

@Darkhorse
I do have a question. I hope that you don't mind my asking.

As a man, who knows how men can think, would you have felt comfortable with nudist beaches had you raised girls instead of boys?

Also, I thought about being clothed in Christ while typing, so I'm glad that you did too.

Yes, if one or both of my kids had been girls, I would do everything the same. Half of the children at nude beaches and resorts are female, and both sexes enjoy the experience.

At first glance, girls may seem more vulnerable to unwanted advances, but with the increased acceptance of homosexuals in the last 20-30 years, boys are equally vulnerable. My wife and I were/are very protective parents and still inform our kids about whatever hazards we may spot.

 

[Darkhorse]

(I missed this last night)

@Darkhorse

I do think nudist beaches is not the same as being out in public topless. It sounds like you describe a safer environment than out in the general public.

I agree, mostly because the general public in the USA is steeped in the "nudity = sex" mindset.

I've never personally seen a topless woman casually walking down the sidewalk. I think the character of the neighborhood would determine the reaction she received, for the most part.


I appreciate your very kind words, Sam91.


I apologize to the OP for focusing on nudity rather than toplessness in my long post.
Most of my experience deals with total nudity, and the principles are the same.

 

[mama2one]

interesting a female tennis player got code violation for taking off top/putting back on she had it on backwards

(she had what looked like a sports bra on under top
so not even totally topless for 5 or so sec)

yet male tennis players had shirts off earlier in day

she was apologized to within 24 hrs

 

[Sam91]

interesting a female tennis player got code violation for taking off top/putting back on she had it on backwards

(she had what looked like a sports bra on under top
so not even totally topless for 5 or so sec)

yet male tennis players had shirts off earlier in day

she was apologized to within 24 hrs

I think that was harsh.