Why Should Women not be Permitted to go Topless in Public?

[Conscious Z]

Only if you are sexist and hypocritical.

Would you care a jot about your husband or son being topless while women looked?

To be fair, that isn't the same question because men being topless is typically not regarded in the same sexual manner as a woman being topless. Carrythecross was pointing to the fact that other people might be getting their jollies off on a family member. That is far more likely to be true with a topless woman than a topless man.

 

[Hank]

Ontario (Canada whole) is so cold... a guy can't even pee outside without his thing turning into a Popsicle. So, why would any woman walk around out in that freezer without a wool turtleneck on?

You'd have to have one of the red dressed Mounties on horse near by her to escort one of those fat, hairy St. Bernard dogs or whatever you call them. To give the poor dame some of that Canadian whiskey or brandy held in that mini barrel around the dogs neck. To revive her.

Canadian women can't dog sled topless either. Too cold outside with the windchill.

What a wonderful straw man. Shall I go south? Nah. Probably will go on then why one needs to be covered up to be protected from the sun

 

[Armoured]

To be fair, that isn't the same question because men being topless is typically not regarded in the same sexual manner as a woman being topless. Carrythecross was pointing to the fact that other people might be getting their jollies off on a family member. That is far more likely to be true with a topless woman than a topless man.

A generally held double standard doesn't make application of that double standard any more just.

People *might* be getting their jollies from smelling your hair on the bus, too, the world's a twisted place. But so what? Why should the fact that some sicko over there is getting their jollies from looking at my topless wife mean that my wife must be the one compelled to cover up?

 

[pittsflyer]

Yes, it creates a public nusance if a woman (espcailly a taken woman) is out flaunting her goods. Could compel other guys to do things that you dont like and they may be stronger and more well armed than you.

You ever watch the movie Troy? Just because we live in a police state does not mean you are free from natural conseqeunces. There are alot of thirsty men in the USA with our anti prostitution laws and police state.

A generally held double standard doesn't make application of that double standard any more just.

People *might* be getting their jollies from smelling your hair on the bus, too, the world's a twisted place. But so what? Why should the fact that some sicko over there is getting their jollies from looking at my topless wife mean that my wife must be the one compelled to cover up?

 

[Armoured]

Yes, it creates a public nusance if a woman (espcailly a taken woman) is out flaunting her goods. Could compel other guys to do things that you dont like and they may be stronger and more well armed than you.

You ever watch the movie Troy? Just because we live in a police state does not mean you are free from natural conseqeunces. There are alot of thirsty men in the USA with our anti prostitution laws and police state.

"Compel" other guys to do things? Indeed.

 

[Carrythecross]

To be fair, that isn't the same question because men being topless is typically not regarded in the same sexual manner as a woman being topless. Carrythecross was pointing to the fact that other people might be getting their jollies off on a family member. That is far more likely to be true with a topless woman than a topless man.

Thank you. Not that this needs any clarification, some people just like to debate. There is a vast difference between men's and women's breasts. Pun intended.

 

[Archivist]

Thank you. Not that this needs any clarification, some people just like to debate. There is a vast difference between men's and women's breasts. Pun intended.

Very true. So, why shouldn't we require men to cover their chests to prevent women from seeing them? That was the law in the US until after World War I.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, it creates a public nusance if a woman (espcailly a taken woman) is out flaunting her goods. Could compel other guys to do things that you dont like and they may be stronger and more well armed than you.

Then why don't they have this problem at the topless beaches in Europe and Australia?

 

[Armoured]

Thank you. Not that this needs any clarification, some people just like to debate. There is a vast difference between men's and women's breasts. Pun intended.

Yet you seem unable to articulate that difference. Curious, no?

 

[Archivist]

To be fair, that isn't the same question because men being topless is typically not regarded in the same sexual manner as a woman being topless. Carrythecross was pointing to the fact that other people might be getting their jollies off on a family member. That is far more likely to be true with a topless woman than a topless man.

So, some men might "get their jollies" by seeing topless women. Therefore we should make it illegal for women to go topless and arrest and fine those who break the law. Please explain exactly how that makes any sense.

Further, you completely ignore the argument that if it became commonplace for women to go topless, fewer men would ultimately "get their jollies" by seeing topless women.

 

[OGM]

Then why don't they have this problem at the topless beaches in Europe and Australia?

Good point that appears to have gone unanswered.

 

[Conscious Z]

A generally held double standard doesn't make application of that double standard any more just.

People *might* be getting their jollies from smelling your hair on the bus, too, the world's a twisted place. But so what? Why should the fact that some sicko over there is getting their jollies from looking at my topless wife mean that my wife must be the one compelled to cover up?

Neither Carrythecross nor myself were referring to the justice of the situation. He was simply pointing out that men would look at a woman in a sexual manner. You responded that the reverse must be true, but it isn't actually true. That has nothing to do with the justice of the situation.

No one said that anyone should be upset by someone getting their jollies. He simply said that one might get upset.

You've created several strawmen from what Carrythecross said and my response to it.

 

[Conscious Z]

Yet you seem unable to articulate that difference. Curious, no?

Again, to be fair, the obvious difference is the way in which they are viewed by society. That is obvious.

 

[Conscious Z]

So, some men might "get their jollies" by seeing topless women. Therefore we should make it illegal for women to go topless and arrest and fine those who break the law. Please explain exactly how that makes any sense.

Further, you completely ignore the argument that if it became commonplace for women to go topless, fewer men would ultimately "get their jollies" by seeing topless women.

I never said it should be illegal for women to go topless. I ignored the argument regarding the normalization of topless women because it had nothing to do with the point Carrythecross and Armoured were discussing, which is whether there is any difference between men's and women's breasts being displayed in public.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that I support a ban on topless women simply from my statement that men's breasts are not considered sexual.

 

[Patchworks]

Yet you seem unable to articulate that difference. Curious, no?

No. This isn't a sex education class. If you don't know the difference between a woman's breasts and a man's chest you're out to lunch.

The scriptures are clear and the laws are too. People arguing women's breasts should be exposed as they wish in America are spitting in the wind.

Our TV censors pixelate obese men who have moobs due to the nipples being unfit for viewing. Must be obscene or something.
What then are people arguing when they're American? And Christian? Ignore the scriptures concerning modest apparel? Show us the scripture where the Bible says women can expose their chests in public as men do and you'll have a valid argument in a Christian community.

 

[keith99]

To be fair, that isn't the same question because men being topless is typically not regarded in the same sexual manner as a woman being topless. Carrythecross was pointing to the fact that other people might be getting their jollies off on a family member. That is far more likely to be true with a topless woman than a topless man.

So? I appreciate a shapely leg. Are we supposed to go back to a time when exposing 4 inches of unshaven ankle was sexy and right at the limit?

Or do we need to go all the way to Burkas!

But no matter how much a person wears we all know that underneath all those clothes they are naked!

 

[Conscious Z]

So? I appreciate a shapely leg. Are we supposed to go back to a time when exposing 4 inches of unshaven ankle was sexy and right at the limit?

Or do we need to go all the way to Burkas!

But no matter how much a person wears we all know that underneath all those clothes they are naked!

I never said that the fact that those two questions were not the same indicated that we should ban topless women. In the post you quoted, I merely pointed out that it is more likely that men will get their jollies from a topless woman than vice versa. I never said that was a good reason to ban topless women.

You are the third person who has quoted that post and assumed that I was arguing that we should ban topless women, when I didn't even mention such a thing. There isn't a false sentence in that entire post, so I'm not sure why it's been met with such disagreement.

Let's look at it:
To be fair, that isn't the same question because men being topless is typically not regarded in the same sexual manner as a woman being topless.
That's obviously true. The fact that we are having this discussion proves so.

Carrythecross was pointing to the fact that other people might be getting their jollies off on a family member.
That is exactly what he said. You can go back and read his post.

That is far more likely to be true with a topless woman than a topless man.
I can't imagine anyone would disagree with this.

So, why so much disagreement on a post that is obviously true?

 

[Archivist]

No. This isn't a sex education class. If you don't know the difference between a woman's breasts and a man's chest you're out to lunch.

Again, if there is a difference then why shouldn't men be required to cover their chests in public? After all, they once were.

The scriptures are clear and the laws are too.

Actually you made a similar statement earlier in the thread and were asked to provide any reference in Scripture that states that women should cover their breasts. You have yet to do so. If Scripture is clear that should be easy. Nor is the law so clear. In New York State, for example, iut is perfectly legal for women to go topless anyplace that men can go topless.

People arguing women's breasts should be exposed as they wish in America are spitting in the wind.

What then are people arguing when they're American?

So Americans shouldn't argue over laws? Do you undestand the whole concept of a republican democracy?

And Christian? Ignore the scriptures concerning modest apparel?

Still waiting for you to provide those references.

Show us the scripture where the Bible says women can expose their chests in public as men do and you'll have a valid argument in a Christian community.

I already showed that there is no place in Scripture that forbids women from going topless. I'm still waiting for you to provide any references to the contrary.

 

[Armoured]

Neither Carrythecross nor myself were referring to the justice of the situation. He was simply pointing out that men would look at a woman in a sexual manner. You responded that the reverse must be true, but it isn't actually true. That has nothing to do with the justice of the situation.

No one said that anyone should be upset by someone getting their jollies. He simply said that one might get upset.

You've created several strawmen from what Carrythecross said and my response to it.

The thread is about why women should not be allowed to go topless. So far "men might get their jollies from looking" or variations thereof appears to be the only offered reason.

 

[Armoured]

No. This isn't a sex education class. If you don't know the difference between a woman's breasts and a man's chest you're out to lunch.

Translation: I can't explain the difference either, so have some condescension and bluster.