Should women be allowed to go around topless in public?

[TRIFORCE89]

I think it's the way that women (some) carry themselves. Guys might walk around topless and silently show off if they're walking down a street, or working in the yard, etc, but you'd never walk through a bookstore and see any guy walking around half naked. It's not like they do it every where. So no, I don't think that women should be allowed to whip out their boobs in a grocery store. XD

I don't understand. How would a woman carry themselves differently?

Generally, if women were suddenly allowed to do it by law and it was normal, we'd get used to it. Though, I think it would take awhile because at first it would be sexy timez all over the place.

Again, it isn't sexy times all over the place here. No one does it XD

 

[Dakotah]

It's legal where I am. And no one goes topless (I don't know where this magical wonderland Jay_37040 lives is XD).

Hamilton and Toronto, my friend. ;)

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Hamilton and Toronto, my friend. ;)

I'm from Toronto...ish. I'm there enough at any rate. GTA

Has this happened a lot? XD

 

[Dakotah]

I'm from Toronto...ish. I'm there enough at any rate. GTA

Has this happened a lot? XD

Enough that I rarely take note of it these days. Occasionally I'll encounter a woman with her top exposed while breastfeeding, and it's very common to see males walking along the sidewalks (or occasionally through parking lots) without shirts on. A number of times while visiting the harbour here in Hamilton, I've seen a small number of women riding their bikes and without shirts on. Again, usually on those especially warm days. The days I see women topless most, however, (as in the number of women) are during Toronto Pride and Hamilton Pride days. And I don't mean just in the parades, I mean women walking the street, hand in hand with their girlfriends, bearing all from the waist up as though it was the most natural thing in the world for them to do.

I'd do the same myself, but I'm afraid my belly would get mistaken for a beach ball, which I've seen get kicked around a lot!

 

[Oryx]

On the social injustice ladder, I'd rank topless ladies near the bottom. How about the some priorities?

I didn't say ban stuff that the majority of people don't use. There's just bigger fish to fry first, that would be a better use of time, money, and discussion. I think you should target issues that affect a much greater array and number of people before you start passing "equality on paper" and grandstanding.

Let's ignore gay rights because children are starving worldwide. Let's ignore bullying because of murder. It's just shifting the focus to say "there are more important issues". There are always more important issues than the one you're talking about. What right do you personally have to judge what's important and what's not important, when the right isn't something being granted to you? That's like a straight person saying that they don't think gay marriage is a big deal. It just doesn't mean anything.

It's legal where I am. And no one goes topless (I don't know where this magical wonderland Jay_37040 lives is XD). So much so, that only time I've ever seen any woman go topless was at a rally to protest not being able to go topless.... even though they can go topless. That's just how much the concept is in the public consciousness. Even the people for it don't even know its already legal.

My Criminology teacher like to say a really important phrase that, based on your repetition of this, I feel you need to hear: the plural of anecdote is not data. Just because you don't see topless women where you are doesn't mean that people don't take advantage of the law. We already have one other person claiming the opposite of what you're saying, so once again, why do you feel that your experience is the norm and we should base the laws around your experience with topless people?

It may be a freedom. I don't think it's a right necessarily. That its legal here doesn't bug me either way, because no one goes topless. I see it as a non-issue. It sure isn't a voting issue for me. But, honestly, society as whole, rightly or wrongly, views bare breasts in a sexual light. If you they sell undergarments for the body part, then it's not really supposed to be out in the open. Are you going to complain about a guy's "lack of freedom" to wander around all dangling and what not? Let's reverse evolution altogether and just wander around naked all day.

Many women need undergarments to hold up their breasts. Other women don't even have to use a bra because they're not big enough. Undergarments don't mean anything. The point I'm making is that in an ideal world, women should be able to bare their breasts because they shouldn't have to succumb to what men think of what they're doing, or anyone for that matter. Men are allowed to walk freely this way and use it responsibly - in general you don't see shirtless men in places you wouldn't expect them such as on the street on a warm day or on the beach. Why do people seem to assume that women would be any different?

The difference between breasts and genitals are that there are two primary function for genitals. For waste dispensing, and sex. Breasts have only one primary function. Breastfeeding. Other than that, the "function" of sex is a manufactured one by society as breasts have no more function in sex as a neck or an ear or a mouth.

I'm a 20-something straight male. I'm not opposed to seeing boobs XD But, when you're out in public I think there is a certain level of decency that society expects. Not a uniform or a dress code, but they don't want to be forced to feel uncomfortable just because they want to walk to the grocery store either. If undergarments exist for the body part and are widely used, then they stay covered in public. The argument was made before that the breast's function is not inherently sexual. Okay. How about the rear-end? Same logic applies there. Should we all walk around with backless pants? The majority of people don't want to see it.

(Breastfeeding being an exception)

Let's move this over to another right. I'm uncomfortable seeing gay men together! If I'm the majority of people in the country, should I have the right to ban them from being together in public because I'm uncomfortable with it? Being the majority doesn't mean that you're right. That's why democracy is a shaky ground for rights towards minorities; if it makes the majority "uncomfortable", they can just vote it away. How many people have to make up a majority before they can take away the freedoms of anyone they see fit? 51%? 75%? 90%? Saying "a lot of people don't like it" is fallacious as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

And yes, either the butt should be allowed to be seen for everyone or disallowed for everyone. I wouldn't care if it was allowed and in fact would argue for it being allowed. I don't care if you "don't want to see it". Neither do I. Sagging pants make me uncomfortable. It should still be allowed.

 

[Deleted member 143209]

I don't see why it wouldn't be legal to begin with. Yet another law subjected to the typical conformity and standards of the overheated and overly sex-driven Western World. Should be legal. Doesn't mean that people would be ready for it. Given how breasts are seen as a sexual or "sexy" body part. It's probably just not socially accepted on this side of the planet, and won't be for a while. Western world is ignorant.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Let's ignore gay rights because children are starving worldwide. Let's ignore bullying because of murder. It's just shifting the focus to say "there are more important issues". There are always more important issues than the one you're talking about. What right do you personally have to judge what's important and what's not important, when the right isn't something being granted to you? That's like a straight person saying that they don't think gay marriage is a big deal. It just doesn't mean anything.

Let's not ignore any of that. That's all a lot more important than going topless.

And I have a right to judge whatever I please and form my own opinion and reply to this thread. Just as you do. I don't want to see it (I don't want to see shirtless guys walking around either. It just seems so trashy), but I'm not necessarily bothered by it either. I have no problems sleeping at night that it is legal here. I'm not big on public nudity, you are apparently. So, agree to disagree.

My Criminology teacher like to say a really important phrase that, based on your repetition of this, I feel you need to hear: the plural of anecdote is not data. Just because you don't see topless women where you are doesn't mean that people don't take advantage of the law. We already have one other person claiming the opposite of what you're saying, so once again, why do you feel that your experience is the norm and we should base the laws around your experience with topless people?

So, you took me literally? When I said "no one does it", that was anecdotal as you point out. Doesn't mean that I meant literally not one single person does it (even though I gave some examples of it occurring anyway). So, yeah. Yay numbers. Numbers would still be in my favour though.

Many women need undergarments to hold up their breasts. Other women don't even have to use a bra because they're not big enough. Undergarments don't mean anything. The point I'm making is that in an ideal world, women should be able to bare their breasts because they shouldn't have to succumb to what men think of what they're doing, or anyone for that matter. Men are allowed to walk freely this way and use it responsibly - in general you don't see shirtless men in places you wouldn't expect them such as on the street on a warm day or on the beach. Why do people seem to assume that women would be any different?

And men don't really have to wear undergarments either. They could easily go commando. It was just a general rule of thumb.

Let's move this over to another right. I'm uncomfortable seeing gay men together! If I'm the majority of people in the country, should I have the right to ban them from being together in public because I'm uncomfortable with it? Being the majority doesn't mean that you're right. That's why democracy is a shaky ground for rights towards minorities; if it makes the majority "uncomfortable", they can just vote it away. How many people have to make up a majority before they can take away the freedoms of anyone they see fit? 51%? 75%? 90%? Saying "a lot of people don't like it" is fallacious as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Okay, you've mentioned gay rights three times now in this post. Are you trying to imply that I'm anti-gay rights because I'm against public nudity? 'Cause that's quite the leap, and not the case. I'm for gay rights.

I don't like "majority rule". Lots of social progress wouldn't have occurred if we stuck by that.

That wasn't really my point. I was just trying to highlight the lack of benefit by legislating it.

And yes, either the butt should be allowed to be seen for everyone or disallowed for everyone. I wouldn't care if it was allowed and in fact would argue for it being allowed. I don't care if you "don't want to see it". Neither do I. Sagging pants make me uncomfortable. It should still be allowed.

So... why should we have any clothes at all then?

In short, should it be legal or allowed? Sure. Do I think it's a nearly useless and mostly symbolic gesture that would go underused? Yup. Would I get offended to see a topless woman on the street? Nope. Not that the bare breast is inherently sexual to begin with. Do I think wearing a shirt is more decent and civil? Yes (and the same goes for guys), outside of say swimming or sunbathing or breastfeeding. Should private (or maybe even public establishments, say a library) be able to uphold their own dress codes? Yes. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

 

[Sir Codin]

I don't have a real problem with it, really.

If a woman wants to go around topless, that's her choice.

 

[Oryx]

Let's not ignore any of that. That's all a lot more important than going topless.

And I have a right to judge whatever I please and form my own opinion and reply to this thread. Just as you do. I don't want to see it (I don't want to see shirtless guys walking around either. It just seems so trashy), but I'm not necessarily bothered by it either. I have no problems sleeping at night that it is legal here. I'm not big on public nudity, you are apparently. So, agree to disagree.

The difference between me and you is that my judgment errs on the side of freedom. I don't really intend to go topless, but I'm erring on the side of freedom for the people that do. Your side is erring on what's most "comfortable" for you to be seeing.

What level of 'importance' is valid enough in your error-less determination to receive attention? If you really don't feel there's any value in the debate, then you're free to stop replying. Obviously I see some value in it, otherwise I wouldn't. If you don't see any point in it, then why bother taking time out of your day to argue for freedom restriction?

So, you took me literally? When I said "no one does it", that was anecdotal as you point out. Doesn't mean that I meant literally not one single person does it (even though I gave some examples of it occurring anyway). So, yeah. Yay numbers. Numbers would still be in my favour though.

Yes, I ignored you the first 1-2 times you mentioned "NO ONE I KNOW GOES TOPLESS THIS IS IMPORTANT INFORMATION", but when you mentioned it in post after post after post I figured you felt this was important information and therefore deserved to actually be replied to for once. If you don't think it's important, don't bring it up so much. Obviously it's affecting your opinion since you find it so integral that you have to mention it so much, so I figured it deserved my attention.

And men don't really have to wear undergarments either. They could easily go commando. It was just a general rule of thumb.

"General rules of thumb" should not be used in creating public policy and laws that govern our society.

Okay, you've mentioned gay rights three times now in this post. Are you trying to imply that I'm anti-gay rights because I'm against public nudity? 'Cause that's quite the leap, and not the case. I'm for gay rights.

Excuse me? That's not what I'm saying at all and it's incredibly rude to draw untrue assumptions that I didn't even close to say in my posts. There are 2 reasons I'm drawing the parallel to gay rights:

1. I'm aware that you're for gay rights, so seeing the parallels may help you to understand why it's an issue, in the same way that people often refer to racism when they're talking about gay rights and trying to show someone how they should be supporting them, because they're not racist and it's a similar situation.
2. There are many parallels. The reasons you're giving are "decency", "code of conduct", and "it makes me uncomfortable". Homophobes can easily apply this to gay people with no tweaking. The uncomfortable argument is an especially telling one, as often that's an underlying argument that people have against gay relationships in general. "Seeing two men kissing makes me uncomfortable."

I don't like "majority rule". Lots of social progress wouldn't have occurred if we stuck by that.

Then cut it out with the "no one does it" and "decency", as decency is an appeal to what the majority feels is "decent" and is not an appeal to some objective morality that we all share. Make real arguments instead of appeals to the majority opinion on toplessness.

So... why should we have any clothes at all then?

I like how you strategically edited out and ignored the part where I explained why genitals should be covered. Go back to my last post and this time try reading all the way through, because I addressed that. Here, in fact, I'll make it easier for you:

The difference between breasts and genitals are that there are two primary function for genitals. For waste dispensing, and sex. Breasts have only one primary function. Breastfeeding. Other than that, the "function" of sex is a manufactured one by society as breasts have no more function in sex as a neck or an ear or a mouth.

In addition, you're now trying to use the slippery slope fallacy. "If we show breasts, then we'll have to allow people to go naked!"

In short, should it be legal or allowed? Sure. Do I think it's a nearly useless and mostly symbolic gesture that would go underused? Yup. Would I get offended to see a topless woman on the street? Nope. Do I think wearing a shirt is more decent and civil? Yes (and the same goes for guys), outside of say swimming or sunbathing or breastfeeding. Should private (or maybe even public establishments, say a library) be able to uphold their own dress codes? Yes. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

I don't think anyone here was speaking of forcing private establishments to allow topless women in them, so not sure why you're bringing that up. It's a freedom that brings women one step closer to not being seen as tools for sex and instead as human beings. Our breasts are not tools for sex. They are a part of our bodies that can participate in sex as much as our mouths, ears, and necks and should not be seen as so "dirty" they need to be hidden. Once again, I know you'll hate this but...

Straight people have no right to tell gay people what things are restricting their freedom as a gay person. They don't know what the other is going through, what does affect them and what does not. You are the same way. You are a man. You have always had this freedom. You have never had to worry about it. You have never had the kind of judgment that many women have for even daring to wear a shirt that shows cleavage, let alone what women probably go through (where it's legal) to go topless. If I was in a place where it was legal, the reason I wouldn't do it wouldn't be because I feel my breasts need to be covered, it would be because of societal pressure from people with your opinion ("I'm uncomfortable!" "THOSE ARE FOR SEX!!"). While the law could wait for society to change first, in fact the more I discuss this the more I feel that it should be a change in the law first. Just like other equality issues, it's not something that should be left up to society at large to change itself. We've shown time and again that the general public does whatever's most convenient for them, regardless of what freedoms are being removed from other people. The law has to change before society can begin to see breasts as a normal part of a body, and not as a sex organ, since they are not.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

What level of 'importance' is valid enough in your error-less determination to receive attention? If you really don't feel there's any value in the debate, then you're free to stop replying. Obviously I see some value in it, otherwise I wouldn't. If you don't see any point in it, then why bother taking time out of your day to argue for freedom restriction?

I'm not without error. And I'm not seeking attention. And I love debate.

Replying to you because you replied to me replying to you and so forth?

I don't generally intend to claim to being right (how I may come off is another matter). I try to state my opinion and reasoning behind it. When questioned on it, I'll defend it. I don't think that's unusual. I welcome your opinion and others' :\

If I was in a place where it was legal, the reason I wouldn't do it wouldn't be because I feel my breasts need to be covered, it would be because of societal pressure from people with your opinion ("I'm uncomfortable!" "THOSE ARE FOR SEX!!").

Also, that's not my opinion as I mentioned in the end of my previous post. Although, it looks like one sentence I added was added after you had already started replying. The part left out in what you quoted said "Not that the bare breast is inherently sexual to begin with."

 

[Kurui]

It wouldn't bother me if other girls walked around topless, but I personally don't want men staring at my chest more than they do already. ^^;; Maybe that's just me though. I have DD size chest and I'm already too self-conscious about it even WITH clothes ON. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was topless then.

But like I said if OTHER people want to, I see no problem with it myself. It is their body, and men can do it so, yeah. More power to those who want to.

 

[Ephemeral Euphoria]

Perverted fantasies aside I don't mind as long as it's their choice and if it isn't harming anyone.

 

[twocows]

As long as it's confined to certain areas where that's more acceptable, I don't have a problem with it. I'd rather not see it in my workplace, as an example.

 

[Charvisioku]

It's good that other people also question this. Personally, I think both genders should be allowed, yeah. I mean, I honestly don't see the difference between a topless man and woman. Okay, so you'll always get guys (most likely hormonal teenage ones) who'll be like "ZOMG BOOBS ARGHHHH", but most people aren't quite so easily distracted.
Besides, it's unfair to let one gender do it and exclude the other one. Even walking around in a bra is frowned upon (I honestly don't know if it's illegal in the UK - probably). I mean, come on.

Should we all walk around with backless pants? The majority of people don't want to see it.

But the reason people don't want to see it is because it's out of their comfort zone. Their socially constructed comfort zone.
Embarrassment about nudity really is just something we're pretty much trained into.
As for seeing it as inherently sexual... I've walked through a nudist beach full of guys who'd be widely considered as attractive and I honestly can't say I paid any attention. It's just a meat suit. Who cares?

 

[twocows]

It's good that other people also question this. Personally, I think both genders should be allowed, yeah. I mean, I honestly don't see the difference between a topless man and woman. Okay, so you'll always get guys (most likely hormonal teenage ones) who'll be like "ZOMG BOOBS ARGHHHH", but most people aren't quite so easily distracted.
Besides, it's unfair to let one gender do it and exclude the other one. Even walking around in a bra is frowned upon (I honestly don't know if it's illegal in the UK - probably). I mean, come on.



But the reason people don't want to see it is because it's out of their comfort zone. Their socially constructed comfort zone.
Embarrassment about nudity really is just something we're pretty much trained into.
As for seeing it as inherently sexual... I've walked through a nudist beach full of guys who'd be widely considered as attractive and I honestly can't say I paid any attention. It's just a meat suit. Who cares?

One could argue pretty much anything is socially constructed. Is it a meaningless rule? Possibly, but it's not hurting anything. Why bother to upset a lot of people for something silly like that? Like you said, who cares?

 

[Zappra]

I do hope it was just that easy to let women go around topless in public place like men. I wouldnt agree in that.

 

[Pikachukid]

Interesting topic. I would have to say "No Shirt, No shoes, No service" so unless you're just going for a stroll it would be a hindrance. Also I'd look at the girl with less respect for flashing people because, and I saw someone say it wasn't a sex organ but I have to disagree; these days women's milk bubbles are viewed sexually. Just talking about them is unnerving since this is supposed to be a kid's site mainly.

But IMHO I wouldn't care, just expect guys to stare a lot more...

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Well in the past (Egyptian times) ankles were viewed as Sexy... we man seem to be attracted to anything that is covered up...so if this was pass and people did it enough it won't be a problem...
Also it makes girls equal to guys ^_^

 

[Rivvon]

I'm all for equality and for the option being available even if it isn't utilized, but I must say...the only reason why I wouldn't want this to happen at the current time is because, from my field of experience, it would be viewed less as a victory for equality but more as a victory for horny, prepubescent pigs. Now, I know that this feeling won't be shared, but sadly I know far too many of the latter...

While it would be great for it to happen eventually, now is just not the time. Society's mindset is not as up-to-date as it should be, which would just make this advancement pointless.

And just for the record, I am all for public decency and modesty and the like, and I don't appreciate women who run around with tops so low-cut that they might as well be wearing nothing, but it is a matter of equality for equality's sake.

 

[Dying Light]

Opinions...

Well in the past (Egyptian times) ankles were viewed as Sexy... we man seem to be attracted to anything that is covered up...so if this was pass and people did it enough it won't be a problem...
Also it makes girls equal to guys ^_^

EXACTLY!

I agree with Magmaruby and Aquasapphire. If we had't have considered it "taboo" in the first place, we wouldn't be viewing it the same way today!

Here's an interesting thought:
Men can have man-jugs, if the physical stature applies, but no one says "Hey! You have them, so you can't be topless!". Of course, they wouldn't be viewed the same way (again, because we think that women's are "taboo" or "sexual"), but that is what I think of it.