Topfreedom

[Skydancing]

You are right it is a none issue, if people don't want to see it don't look!

 

[The Seeker]

No, it's proven that guys are visually stimulated easier. That's why they struggle most w/ porn and such.

On a side note, who's "struggling"? I find porn very easy to use, myself

 

[Skydancing]

I have never known men to struggle with porn, I think they enjoy it!

 

[xAtheistx]

http://www.christianforums.com/f214-pornography-addiction-support.html

 

[loriersea]

Personally, I wouldn't go around topless. I don't even like walking around my house without a bra on: it's just not comfortable. I can't imagine anyone other than the very small-breasted taking advantage of these laws.

But, I do think female toplessness should be legal in any setting where male toplessness is. It makes no sense to have a law against one but not the other. The only real difference between male and female breasts is that female breasts can produce milk and male breasts can't, and if anything that should make the female breast (since it is actually functional) more acceptable to be seen than the male breast.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Anyway.....it is fact because guys themselves have stated it. have you heard of the Book 'Every Young Man's Battle". There is also 'Every young woman's battle' but both are geared toward ea. invd. genders personal struggles and girl's struggles are different then boy's struggles in some key areas. Guys have the most issues w/ visualization and seeing. Girls don't have as much. And girls themselves have stated this. Have you heard of girls being addicted to porn? Not as much as guys. Guys can see something and be turned on easier than w/ girls. That's why some girls dress in such ways to get guys drooling. Plus, just look at the christian guys area on here and they themselves testify to having issues w/ not lusting due to how girls dress and such. Why? Because guys are more easily visually stimulated. I'm getting this from what guys themselves had said and what you can just see in life. It's not that hard to see unless you're blind to it or have no convictions.

 

[loriersea]

Lilly, please, please do not use "Every Young Man's Battle" as the source by which you get your information about gender differences. It is a highly, highly ideological book, and is geared toward perpetuating the ideas you are repeating here, rather than actually exploring these issues fully and truthfully.

If "guys are more visually stimulated" and we should take that then as the basis for what should be legally allowed, should we have laws against women wearing short shirts? Tank tops? Midriff-baring tops? Should we make it illegal for a woman to go outside unless she is wearing a burka? Obviously, you believe that men are ALREADY having trouble controlling their lusts around women, despite the fact that women are not walking around topless. Should we therefore pass laws restricting how women should dress so that men won't be tempted? And, of course, when that happens, the logical outcome is a complete covering like the burka, because as long as a wrist or ankle is visible, there is SOMETHING that will turn men on (look at Victorian literature).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have never known men to struggle with porn, I think they enjoy it!

LOL!

I have to admit to agreeing with Lilly of the Valley for once. To an extent, at least.

I wouldn't say that males are "more visually stimulated" so much as they seem to crave more stimulation. I read in an article once that there was some scientific evidence that men experience a chemical jolt much like a small hit of cocaine when they look at sexy pictures of naked women. No wonder photos of sexy women can be found virtually everywhere.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It's certainly true that men are more likely to be stimulated by erotic imagery. However, as lorisea said, that is a very poor reason indeed to limit how women must/can dress. To restrict what women can wear in public because some men might/will be stimulated is a perilous path that leads to the compulsory covering up of every part of their body by women - as in some middle eastern nations, where the burka is compulsory. As soon as you accept the logic of 'women should not go topless because men might be aroused', the inevitable end result is the burka.

 

[xAtheistx]

"guys are more visually stimulated"

Point. Guys get horny when they see women; let's remove womens' rights to equality.

 

[Archivist]

There are several reasons why women should have the right to go topfree anyplace that men can go topfree:

1) During the Victorian Era neither sex went topless in public. To do so was considered highly offensive. Men gradually gained the right to go topless at beaches, but this right did not immediately extend elsewhere; as late as the 1960s men were ticketed for going topless in New York's Central Park. To allow men to go topless while prohibiting women from doing so violates equal protection.

2) Forbiding women from going topless in public while allowing men to do so places an unfair burden on women. There is currently a case in California where it is being argued that under Megan's Law women convicted of indecent exposure for topless sunbathing--something that men can do without fear of prosecution--could find themselves listed as sex offenders alongside rapists and child molesters.

3) To argue that allowing women to go topless will cause men to sin by lusting ignores the fact that the US is not a Christian nation, and our laws are not based on religious dogma.

 

[tgg]

Editor's Opinion: Nipple strikes terror in American society
By: Kate Drolet

Pornographic.

Disgusting.

Inappropriate.

Embarrassing.

Terrifying to American society.

I'm not referring to Ron Jeremy, Al Qaeda or accidental flatulence. These words refer to something that strikes a nerve much deeper in society, something that crosses party lines and freaks out people on all ends of the political spectrum.

I'm talking about … the female nipple.

Where does America's nipple phobia stem from? Perhaps our aversion to these functional parts comes from the strong link between nudity and sexuality. From porn to mainstream media, showing skin represents sex, an eternally controversial topic surrounded by morals and taboo curiosity. Parents do have a right to teach their kids about sexuality, and pop culture does thrust extreme behavior at us regularly.

But let's be serious. A fleeting view of Janet Jackson's mammary wouldn't seriously traumatize children if such a taboo buzz didn't surround it.

I'll admit, you won't see me strolling through campus in the buff. I subscribe to the social norms that dictate appropriate behavior in this area. But I do plan on breastfeeding my children someday, and I'm bothered by the negative attitude about doing it in public. When our discomfort spreads to a functional concept, we have a problem.

Modesty is relative. We've managed to ostracize the female nipple - an anatomical part that fulfills a natural purpose - and accept the male version, despite the fact that it's practically identical.

Any teenage girl can purchase a magazine that features men without their shirts. Cosmopolitan actually has a specific 'Man without his Shirt' page that appears regularly. Try and find women without coverage, and you'll have to present ID at the counter.

Even the Discovery Channel and National Geographic blur out the female nipple during educational shows. I can view a woman's internal organs after a surgeon slices through her skin, but God forbid I catch a glimpse of her nipple. I can watch an uncensored account of tribal boys undergoing painful coming-of-age ceremonies, but viewing an unclothed mother playing with her children requires carefully positioned pixelation. The blurring doesn't cover her entire breast, nor is it even applied to male chests. Apparently it's not inappropriate unless we see the ever-offensive nipple.

What scares us so much? Are we afraid of turning into a lewd, voyeuristic society if we let the female mammary gland peep out on any occasion? Europe seems to be doing all right, even with the various clothing-optional beaches and nude spas. The novelty and scandalous taboo of nudity wears off pretty quickly once people get over the shock.

Our attitude toward anatomy is a little too rigid. I'm not suggesting we should all throw out our t-shirts and bare everything, nor am I peddling promiscuity. Americans just need to get over our fear of the Big Bad Nipple. Stop throwing disapproving glances at breastfeeding mothers, and don't gawk at every inch of forbidden skin. Evaluate your perception of nudity, and keep it in perspective. Our body parts only freak us out because we let them.

 

[xAtheistx]

Where is that article from?

 

[Higher]

That article is by a female.

 

[Archivist]

That article is by a female.

If I were a women, such as the person who wrote this article, I would be upset by civil laws that place me in the position of being a second-class citizen.

 

[Archivist]

That article is by a female.

If I were a women, such as the person who wrote this article, I would be upset by antiquated civil laws like those that bar women from going topless in public. Essentially these laws do nothing but place women in the position of being second-class citizens.

 

[The Seeker]

It's certainly true that men are more likely to be stimulated by erotic imagery. However, as lorisea said, that is a very poor reason indeed to limit how women must/can dress. To restrict what women can wear in public because some men might/will be stimulated is a perilous path that leads to the compulsory covering up of every part of their body by women - as in some middle eastern nations, where the burka is compulsory. As soon as you accept the logic of 'women should not go topless because men might be aroused', the inevitable end result is the burka.

Not to mention that it begs the question; "What is so wrong with men being aroused anyway?"