Should women be allowed to go around topless in public?

[Kura]

Except the majority of teenage boys, including myself, are chauvanistic *******s who have pretty much no decency whatsoever. So...

Exactly why it probably shouldn't be allowed. I mean.. I don't think it should be illegal- but in some places, like restaurants, etc, it should be prohibited.

If it was allowed in clubs you'd get people groping women or asking people to take their shirt off, etc, and eventually become the norm.. which I don't agree with if it's for sexual reasons.


Boobs on commercials? Boobs at the beach? Breastfeading? Boobs on billboards? Wearing something classy and sheer where you can see a bit of boobage through like in some fashion runways? Hey that's ok. But it wont be taken well when you have loads of horny teens running about trying to "accidentally" bump into a girl with some cleavage and trying to cop a feel. It happens enough already, we dont need to encourage it or encourage girls feeling violated.


As for people who wanna be nudists or topless, there are indeed places for that already.

 

[doesn't matter]

Why do women want to behave like men? What purpose does that serve other than debasing the value of women?

 

[Oryx]

After a while of boobs just being "there", it's highly possible that it won't become such an amazing thing to guys anyway. I guess I just really don't get why guys like boobs at all so I figure if it's always there and not sexualized, then wouldn't it serve to desensitize them to it and make it less "boobs = woody"?

I don't understand the decency argument at all though. We all have different morals. Even if it was legal here to go topless, I wouldn't because I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. But I don't see why the girl down the street has to follow my values. On the other hand though, with the way breasts have been sexualized now and in the past, I don't think it's really possible to move past that into a place where breasts are seen as sexual in only certain situations; for example, necks can be seen as sexual in certain situations but they're not required to be covered up.

So I believe ideally it should be allowed, but our world is not an ideal one and we have a long way to go before it should be allowed in this world.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A woman with saggy boobs is no worse than a man who is wrinkly, fat, and hairy walking around topless; and women also find attractive men with no tops on to be arousing.

 

[Esper]

No, I don't agree with this. We are not equal, and that's that. We can't be treated equally because we're just not the same. What I'm saying isn't anything offensive or sexist or whatever, it's the simple truth. A females chest is not the same as a males. Not biologically, and especially not morally. And that doesn't change, even when they do look the same sometimes with some people, because it's hardly about what they look like physically. It's just not decent for a girl to do that, and it is for a guy. Why?? Because of the certain purpose that female breasts have, that male breasts don't. If male breasts would have the same function as females, guys wouldn't walk around topless either (ofc I'm sure some would, just as some females do too, so that's not the point). Also, whether breasts are attractive to guys or not is completely subjective. There's enough straight guys alone that don't necessarily like them, and then there's all the homosexual ones, and homosexual females that DO like them, so I'm not gonna use that point because it's not really solid.

Tbh I'm getting sick and tired of people constantly wanting to equalize EVERYTHING between males and females, you just can't do that, we're not equal, we're different. Since when do girls want to walk topless btw, just because guys can?? It's just ridiculous lol.

So... it's not about what breasts look like, but their function that makes it immoral for women's breasts to be seen in public? I can only assume you're saying that "the certain purpose female breasts have" is that of breastfeeding. I can't think of anything else that differentiates male and female breasts (although there have been some cases of male lactation, jsyk).

Following this argument then, a woman who is not lactating/breastfeeding should be no different in "purpose" to a man and since that purpose is the reason for the immorality a non-lactating breast ought to be perfectly, morally okay to see. Unless you meant that the possibility of lactation is enough to make it immoral, in which case a woman past menopause should be able to have her breasts out in public since she won't be having and kids and therefore won't be breastfeeding.

I'm a little confused on your stance on women who've undergone mastectomies though. Care to clarify?

What ever happened to the word modesty?

Modest is 1) subjective, 2) a personal choice, and 3) not something you can force on someone if they aren't harming anybody.

Why do women want to behave like men? What purpose does that serve other than debasing the value of women?

I'm a little confused. Perhaps if you would tell us what "the value of women" is I would understand how an uncovered breast becomes debasing.

 

[Riku]

So... it's not about what breasts look like, but their function that makes it immoral for women's breasts to be seen in public? I can only assume you're saying that "the certain purpose female breasts have" is that of breastfeeding. I can't think of anything else that differentiates male and female breasts (although there have been some cases of male lactation, jsyk).

Men are also more than capable of breastfeeding, too... There's proof enough that that has been happening for a long time as well. Anatomically speaking, men have everything women do as far as the structure of the breasts go, it's just a liiiittle bit different in how it is set up and whatnot. Hence a reason as to why men are capable of getting breast cancer. So, I don't think or believe at all that there is a biological reason for women to not be able to go topless as well.

I'm a little confused. Perhaps if you would tell us what "the value of women" is I would understand how an uncovered breast becomes debasing.

I also was curious a little about that... also as to why it's attempting to be like men just because it's a reasonable question pertaining to equality. Why do women have to be attempting to emulate men just to be able to go without a top?

 

[Yoshikko]

So... it's not about what breasts look like, but their function that makes it immoral for women's breasts to be seen in public? I can only assume you're saying that "the certain purpose female breasts have" is that of breastfeeding. I can't think of anything else that differentiates male and female breasts (although there have been some cases of male lactation, jsyk).

Following this argument then, a woman who is not lactating/breastfeeding should be no different in "purpose" to a man and since that purpose is the reason for the immorality a non-lactating breast ought to be perfectly, morally okay to see. Unless you meant that the possibility of lactation is enough to make it immoral, in which case a woman past menopause should be able to have her breasts out in public since she won't be having and kids and therefore won't be breastfeeding.

I'm a little confused on your stance on women who've undergone mastectomies though. Care to clarify?

Look, I know there are exceptions to what I said if you're gonna nitpick like that, but THEORETICALLY then if you will, the female breast is for breastfeeding your child. That is the purpose, whether you had a mastectomy or not lmao, or are 17 or 80 years old.

 

[Oryx]

Look, I know there are exceptions to what I said if you're gonna nitpick like that, but THEORETICALLY then if you will, the female breast is for breastfeeding your child. That is the purpose, whether you had a mastectomy or not lmao, or are 17 or 80 years old.

Why is having a breast out indecent due to the purpose of breastfeeding? Are bottles indecent to be seen as well?

 

[Yoshikko]

Why is having a breast out indecent due to the purpose of breastfeeding? Are bottles indecent to be seen as well?

A fat guy with man boobs can go topless and it won't be a big deal, even if they'd look like female breasts, because they aren't the same. And they aren't, because female breasts have that purpose and theirs don't, so yes, that's mainly one of the reasons. The other one being that it's sexualized etc but as I said in my first post, I wasn't gonna use that point because that is something subjective.

 

[Oryx]

A fat guy with man boobs can go topless and it won't be a big deal, even if they'd look like female breasts, because they aren't the same. And they aren't, because female breasts have that purpose and theirs don't, so yes, that's mainly one of the reasons. The other one being that it's sexualized etc but as I said in my first post, I wasn't gonna use that point because that is something subjective.

But the reason they aren't the same isn't because of breastfeeding. If you ask anyone anywhere it's because of sexualization. You're trying to make the argument that the reason it isn't a big deal for men to go around topless is due to the function of breastfeeding, and not the sexualization of women's breasts, and what I'm asking you to do is to back that argument up somehow because I really don't see how breastfeeding is so indecent that it causes this kind of drastic reaction in people.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Modest is 1) subjective, 2) a personal choice, and 3) not something you can force on someone if they aren't harming anybody.

Modesty is:
1. freedom from vanity, boastfulness, etc.
2. regard for decency of behavior, speech, dress, etc.

And she wasn't trying to force it upon anyone. Her point was why are we moving away from that? What is it we're appealing to? Is the entire population a bunch of thirteen-year-old boys?

 

[Yoshikko]

But the reason they aren't the same isn't because of breastfeeding. If you ask anyone anywhere it's because of sexualization. You're trying to make the argument that the reason it isn't a big deal for men to go around topless is due to the function of breastfeeding, and not the sexualization of women's breasts, and what I'm asking you to do is to back that argument up somehow because I really don't see how breastfeeding is so indecent that it causes this kind of drastic reaction in people.

Well, not necessarily breastfeeding but just the fact that we have them for something related to something sexual, which is also I think the reason why breasts are sexualized in the first place. They wouldn't be if they were purpose-less and just there, like male's. Besides, I already said before I wasn't gonna rely on the sexualization of them as an argument because it's subjective. There's plenty of men who don't find breasts necessarily attractive, even some who find them a turn-off. And there's girls who find the bare chest of a man attractive, so that wouldn't be a reason at all.

I honestly think this whole thing is just again something that people do not necessarily want, but only for the sake of equalizing females with males.

 

[Oryx]

Well, not necessarily breastfeeding but just the fact that we have them for something related to something sexual, which is also I think the reason why breasts are sexualized in the first place. They wouldn't be if they were purpose-less and just there, like male's. Besides, I already said before I wasn't gonna rely on the sexualization of them as an argument because it's subjective. There's plenty of men who don't find breasts necessarily attractive, even some who find them a turn-off. And there's girls who find the bare chest of a man attractive, so that wouldn't be a reason at all.

You're saying you're not relying on sexualization for your argument, then say they're 'related to something sexual'. So are hands, ears, necks, mouths. None of these are seen as obscene to be seen in public. So that argument doesn't hold up, unless you rely on sexualization of something that isn't inherently sexual (or at least, not more sexual than other parts of us that we don't have a problem with seeing).

The 'purpose' of breasts has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with breastfeeding. The sexual connotations of breasts came afterwards. So if you're saying they're indecent because of their purpose, which you keep claiming, you're saying breastfeeding is indecent. You're skirting your claim by just talking in circles and making the same claim over and over without backing it up at all. Why do you think breastfeeding is indecent? Or are you saying that the purpose of a woman's breasts is related to sex, not breastfeeding? Either way, back yourself up.

Edit to reply to your edit:

It doesn't matter if the majority of women don't intend to go shirtless. It's legal for people to ride motorcycles, that doesn't mean the majority of the world is going to go out and buy a motorcycle. It's about the freedom to do so, and whether or not it actually harms other people and therefore needs to be regulated.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I honestly think this whole thing is just again something that people do not necessarily want, but only for the sake of equalizing females with males.

This is true. I don't think a topless woman is inherently indecent or itself a sexual act. But, what you say here is correct. In Ontario (and maybe other parts or even the rest of Canada, I don't know) wherever a man can go topless, so can a woman (except for beaches, where there are separate topless or nude designated beach locations. So, go figure that one out).

But, you don't see any topless women walking down the street. They're able to, they don't want to. They feel uncomfortable, they don't want to be ogled at, etc. Whatever legitimate reason. The point is, they don't do it even though they can.

So, yeah, the whole argument is essentially equalization for the sake of equalization. A bit of a waste of government resources.

 

[Livewire]

Couple of things:

A) This is a stupid thread.

B) Women can't be topless for really obvious reasons

C) Flaunt it if you got it aka boobs are great

 

[Oryx]

Couple of things:

A) This is a stupid thread.

B) Women can't be topless for really obvious reasons

C) Flaunt it if you got it aka boobs are great

A) Disagree, it's got some good discussion that I've been enjoying.

B) The point of the argument is that these reasons are wrong and shouldn't be thought of as legitimate reasons to restrict a person's freedom. Why do you feel that the reasons are legitimate? Because society is conditioned to believe breasts = sex?

C) Boobs ARE great!

 

[droomph]

Because society is conditioned to believe breasts = sex?

I might want to add that when men see something we like we will respond to it no matter what we try. if you know what i mean

And so that's mainly the reason it's so awkward for us.

 

[Oryx]

I might want to add that when men see something we like we will respond to it no matter what we try. if you know what i mean

And so that's mainly the reason it's so awkward for us.

What about men who have a fetish for legs? Or any part that is allowed to be shown? Should we go full Islam and ban women from showing any part of their body in case a man can't control himself?

If you get a boner, handle it. Don't make the rest of the world regulate themselves to handle your hormones. In addition, if breasts weren't so sexualized then you wouldn't have that kind of reaction to them. Do you have that kind of reaction to seeing a woman's neck? No, because while it can be sexual, its purpose is non-sexual first and sexual second. If society de-sexualized breasts (pause to lol at that thought), then you wouldn't be popping boners every time a woman went topless.

Put it this way - if it wasn't so sexual for a woman to go out wearing panties without pants, I would do it. I feel more comfortable without pants when I'm in my house, it makes it easier to move, etc. However, even if it was legal now, I wouldn't because it's seen as sexual. The same is in Ontario. Although it's legal to be topless, society still sees it as sexual so it's not something a woman would feel free to do. It's not something a law can fix.

 

[droomph]

What about men who have a fetish for legs? Or any part that is allowed to be shown? Should we go full Islam and ban women from showing any part of their body in case a man can't control himself?

If you get a boner, handle it. Don't make the rest of the world regulate themselves to handle your hormones. In addition, if breasts weren't so sexualized then you wouldn't have that kind of reaction to them. Do you have that kind of reaction to seeing a woman's neck? No, because while it can be sexual, its purpose is non-sexual first and sexual second. If society de-sexualized breasts (pause to lol at that thought), then you wouldn't be popping boners every time a woman went topless.

Put it this way - if it wasn't so sexual for a woman to go out wearing panties without pants, I would do it. I feel more comfortable without pants when I'm in my house, it makes it easier to move, etc. However, even if it was legal now, I wouldn't because it's seen as sexual. The same is in Ontario. Although it's legal to be topless, society still sees it as sexual so it's not something a woman would feel free to do. It's not something a law can fix.

Hey, I didn't say that I didn't want topless. I just said that you might want to keep that in mind when some people are being really stubborn on their views , and they're male. So you know, like pander to them or something

 

[Oryx]

Hey, I didn't say that I didn't want topless. I just said that you might want to keep that in mind when some people are being really stubborn on their views , and they're male. So you know, like pander to them or something

But the only valid reason for enacting a law is that without the law people are being harmed. Without the "women can't be topless" law, who is being harmed? Children will associate breasts with things other than sex, and as something natural. Men will...possibly have to conceal a boner that they can't control. No one is being seriously harmed in a way that would make sense to constrain freedom of action. It's a moral law; it's in place because people think it's icky to see breasts since they're so sexualized. There's no other justification for it.