A REVOLUTION I think we can ALL get behind!

[Moonlit_Angel]

If it were up to people like you, anything would be legal.

Correction: things would be legal so long as nobody else was being harmed or killed or forced to do something in the process. Breasts have done none of those three things to anybody. It's just a body part, and it only means something to those who allow it to mean something to them.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

But, as we have discussed before, we have very divergent views on what constitutes harm.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

But, as we have discussed before, we have very divergent views on what constitutes harm.

I'm talking physical harm-cuts, bruises, broken bones, that kind of thing. Or something that, should somebody attempt it, would cause death to other people. And a topless person just going about their business does not do any of that stuff.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm talking physical harm-cuts, bruises, broken bones, that kind of thing. Or something that, should somebody attempt it, would cause death to other people. And a topless person just going about their business does not do any of that stuff.

Angela

Surely you would consider emotional or psychological damage in your definition of "harm".

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Surely you would consider emotional or psychological damage in your definition of "harm".

No, because every person is different when it comes to what emotionally or psychologically harms them. Every person, if hit hard enough, will get a bruise (except for those extremely rare situations where a person is born without the ablity to bruise or feel pain or something along that line). But not every person will be emotionally affected by the same images and words. Not every person would be emotionally affected by seeing a breast.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

So, someone could stalk you (creating fear, apprehension, etc.), but never touch you, and you would not be harmed?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Does anyone think there would be more occasions of inappropriate behaviour if women were permitted to walk around topless? If laws were changed there could possibly be some women who would take the opportunity to do so, and I imagine there would be a bit of a media buzz if the laws were ever changed, and I wonder if that would lead to more instances of harrassment, stalking even, perhaps assault. It must always be the offender who wears responsibility and that wont change, but I do wonder if it the sheer increase alone in this kind of thing should be enough for government to say it's not on and therefore everyone should cover up.

I really appreciate what you have been saying on this Moonlit_Angel. And agree with a lot of what you say, but I think in the end for equality we should look more at changing freedom for men to reach that. I think we'd all hate to live in a world where perversion is more common place and it's all fair and good to feel and truly believe it is never the woman's fault, as it should never be, but we cannot allow opportunity for harm.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I understand what you're saying, Angela (and thanks for the support and appreciation)-yeah, believe me, I certainly wouldn't wish harm on people, either-I think it sucks that there is still that mentality in some ways that if a woman dresses a certain way she's asking for whatever a guy does to her, but sadly, it still does exist.

However, people mentioned Europe allowing for nude beaches, and then there was sulawesigirl4's post about her area of the world that allowed for that stuff, and she said that there wasn't any increase in that kind of behavior there, and I don't recall ever hearing about big outbreaks of harassment in Europe either (any of our European friends have the answer for that one?), so there is that to consider, too.

So, someone could stalk you (creating fear, apprehension, etc.), but never touch you, and you would not be harmed?

I'd be creeped out, no doubt about that, but until it gets to the point where it's pretty obvious they could do physical harm to me or to anyone I know, or they're totally invading my privacy, which is violating one of my rights I'm guaranteed, just following me around isn't cause for being punished. Besides, even stalking definitions can vary from person to person-how far the person has to follow them in order for it to be considered stalking (some could say just following them down the street is stalking, some could say it's not such until they start invading their home, etc.).

Angela

 

[deep]

So, someone could stalk you (creating fear, apprehension, etc.), but never touch you, and you would not be harmed?

would she be topless?

 

[Dreadsox]

I think it interesting the point that Sula made.....in relation to the line that NBC is going.

Apparently the places she has lived and worked have manages to not have too many damaged or injured people walking around because of this.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

you might consider spending a wekend at a nudist camp
to overcome your areolaphobia

Sure... after all, every view I have is from my irrational fears.

Why not require every US citizen to do the same thing?

 

[nbcrusader]

I'd be creeped out, no doubt about that, but until it gets to the point where it's pretty obvious they could do physical harm to me or to anyone I know, or they're totally invading my privacy, which is violating one of my rights I'm guaranteed, just following me around isn't cause for being punished. Besides, even stalking definitions can vary from person to person-how far the person has to follow them in order for it to be considered stalking (some could say just following them down the street is stalking, some could say it's not such until they start invading their home, etc.).

Angela

But we are trying to define "harm" here. So, if you were writing the anti-stalking law, you would require a showing of imminent physical harm.

Based on the forgoing, it sounds like an "invasion of privacy" would require someone to physically enter your home.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

But we are trying to define "harm" here. So, if you were writing the anti-stalking law, you would require a showing of imminent physical harm.

Yeah.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Based on the forgoing, it sounds like an "invasion of privacy" would require someone to physically enter your home.

That would definitely be a part of it, yes.

Angela

 

[BVS]

You're a big fan of outrage.

No

I never said men aren't responsible. You're exaggerating on a false assumption that I somehow believe men are not responsible for their actions.

You said you agreed with the notion that it's up to the women and society. Go back and look at the post you agreed with.

Read my post that stated if you want equality, then bar men from not wearing shirts.

That's even more ridiculous.

You either have a major problem with conformity,

Everyone should. Conformity is mindless.

or you feel obligated to take the hard liberal side no matter what the issue is. Even if it's a stupid issue.

No.
Why is this liberal? Because it's about women's rights?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Conformity is mindless.

This has to be the most unintelligent comment I've heard in a long time. Why is the military so coordinated? Because they enforce conformity, not rebellion.

You said you agreed with the notion that it's up to the women and society. Go back and look at the post you agreed with.

You arrived at this conclusion by means of exaggeration. I believe in imposing the men with large fines for infidelity. Both are morally responsible for their actions, for the last freaking time.

Why is this liberal? Because it's about women's rights?

It's liberal because it ignores the fact that the law was made to suit the condition of our society, and is centered on replacing moral logic with political correctness.

"Women's rights"... Please.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I understand what you're saying, Angela (and thanks for the support and appreciation)-yeah, believe me, I certainly wouldn't wish harm on people, either-I think it sucks that there is still that mentality in some ways that if a woman dresses a certain way she's asking for whatever a guy does to her, but sadly, it still does exist.

However, people mentioned Europe allowing for nude beaches, and then there was sulawesigirl4's post about her area of the world that allowed for that stuff, and she said that there wasn't any increase in that kind of behavior there, and I don't recall ever hearing about big outbreaks of harassment in Europe either (any of our European friends have the answer for that one?), so there is that to consider, too.

I'm sorry if this appears as though I'm picking apart every point you are making, I dont mean it to be lol
The points you and Sula make about Europe and Africa are spot on for those regions. I do agree, but (sorry here's the 'but' lol) is societal perception the same in those areas as America? I ask this perhaps as naively as I would in asking if Europe or Africa had issues of their own in this. If asked about Australia, I'd be hesitant to say we would be ready for it. We're fairly laid back, but I dont think we're ready for the uber liberal reality which is portrayed in a stereotype about Europe for example.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Macfistowannabe, all we're asking is that girls be treated exactly the same way guys are in regards to this issue-either both sexes cover up or both sexes are free to expose whatever they want to expose. It's a very simple idea, there's no hidden agenda here or anything like that.

I'm sorry if this appears as though I'm picking apart every point you are making, I dont mean it to be lol

LOL, hey, that's fine, I understand. Any questions you have about points I'm making, do bring them up.

Originally posted by Angela Harlem
The points you and Sula make about Europe and Africa are spot on for those regions. I do agree, but (sorry here's the 'but' lol) is societal perception the same in those areas as America? I ask this perhaps as naively as I would in asking if Europe or Africa had issues of their own in this. If asked about Australia, I'd be hesitant to say we would be ready for it. We're fairly laid back, but I dont think we're ready for the uber liberal reality which is portrayed in a stereotype about Europe for example.

That is a good question. I honestly don't know. I know there's some people here in America that hold the same attitudest hat people in Europe and Africa do in regards to this topic, as is evidenced by this thread, for example...but considering that that's not the case with everyone here...yeah, I don't know. Both sides would want their way here, so...

I don't think we should just automatically give up this idea, though-we can continue to discuss it with people and see what others say about it and everything. Perhaps one day things will change. Perhaps they won't. We'll never know, though, unless we bring up the idea.

Angela

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Macfistowannabe, all we're asking is that girls be treated exactly the same way guys are in regards to this issue-either both sexes cover up or both sexes are free to expose whatever they want to expose. It's a very simple idea, there's no hidden agenda here or anything like that.

At least you can make your point of view without using tired cliches like "women's rights" and "equality." I'd rather some here would just tell it as it is. I'm not trying to be a hitman, a caveman, or a chauvanist for that matter, I just see the law as necessary to fit our breast-obsessed society. As wild as I find the idea, I suppose you aren't here to play games.

I don't think we should just automatically give up this idea, though-we can continue to discuss it with people and see what others say about it and everything. Perhaps one day things will change. Perhaps they won't. We'll never know, though, unless we bring up the idea.

How many here would honestly DIE for this idea to happen? Because I sure wouldn't.

 

[all_i_want]

do we really have to die for an idea to make it happen?

what ideas would you die for? oh, of course, 'freedom'

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Let's remember a few names who died for their ideas to be realized: Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, John F. Kennedy, John Lennon... surely that's not all. But many on this list were willing to die for what they believed in.

 

[all_i_want]

there are ideas to die for, but then as i said, we dont HAVE TO die to make things happen. supporting an idea is not always a matter of life or death. particularly not if its about breasts

 

[Macfistowannabe]

there are ideas to die for, but then as i said, we dont HAVE TO die to make things happen. supporting an idea is not always a matter of life or death. particularly not if its about breasts

Yes, but I must test the passion of those who believe so strongly in the issue. Are you sincere enough to give your life for it, or are you just making noise?

 

[Do Miss America]

Yes, but I must test the passion of those who believe so strongly in the issue. Are you sincere enough to give your life for it, or are you just making noise?

And you're going to die for the idea that breasts should be obscene? This is a joke?

 

[BVS]

This has to be the most unintelligent comment I've heard in a long time.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

At least you can make your point of view without using tired cliches like "women's rights" and "equality." I'd rather some here would just tell it as it is. I'm not trying to be a hitman, a caveman, or a chauvanist for that matter, I just see the law as necessary to fit our breast-obsessed society. As wild as I find the idea, I suppose you aren't here to play games.[/B]

No...I just want a simple, logical answer as to why women's bodies are something that should be hidden, but guys' aren't. As I said earlier, it seems to be the nipples in particular that are the problem here, 'cause I've seen parts of girls' breasts exposed on TV before, and it's pretty much the nipple part that's blurred overall...well, gee, if the nipple's the only offending area, guys have 'em, too, and there's certainly no difference between nipples-a nipple is a nipple-so I don't quite get the big deal. That's all. And if there isn't really a logical answer to that question, I just don't see why people should care whether or not a woman wishes to not cover herself up. It's her body, after all, not yours, so why should you care?

Perhaps our society's so obsessed with breasts because they're covered up so often? People are fascinated by things that are hidden from view, that are seen as "forbidden", so to speak...perhaps that's the case here.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
How many here would honestly DIE for this idea to happen? Because I sure wouldn't.

I highly doubt war will break out over this issue...this isn't a life or death issue here, it's just a few women wondering why their bodies should be looked at differently from guys' bodies, wondering what the big deal is about ours that we should hide them and practically feel shame for exposing any part of them other than the arms and legs.

Angela

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Great argument.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

And you're going to die for the idea that breasts should be obscene? This is a joke?

I'd die for a society that pushes higher standards. No, it's not a joke.

 

[Do Miss America]

I'd die for a society that pushes higher standards. No, it's not a joke.

So breasts obscene = higher standards

Sure sounds like a punchline.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

No...I just want a simple, logical answer as to why women's bodies are something that should be hidden, but guys' aren't. As I said earlier, it seems to be the nipples in particular that are the problem here, 'cause I've seen parts of girls' breasts exposed on TV before, and it's pretty much the nipple part that's blurred overall...well, gee, if the nipple's the only offending area, guys have 'em, too, and there's certainly no difference between nipples-a nipple is a nipple-so I don't quite get the big deal. That's all. And if there isn't really a logical answer to that question, I just don't see why people should care whether or not a woman wishes to not cover herself up. It's her body, after all, not yours, so why should you care?

There are times when they are appropriate, and there are times when they are not. If it's Playboy, that's strictly your business how you choose to behave. If it's the Super Bowl halftime show where there are children in the audience - not to mention plain old folks who just want a decent means of entertainment, I won't cry for you if you get fined. A women's breast is considered the closest thing to a sex organ, and as a matter of fact, our society has treated them as sex organs. They are used in foreplay in our society more often than not. Therefore, laws have been made to suit the condition of our society. Men's breasts? They're not that attractive, and they are in no way treated as sex organs. I'd laugh at any man who tries to use his mosquito bites for foreplay.

Perhaps our society's so obsessed with breasts because they're covered up so often? People are fascinated by things that are hidden from view, that are seen as "forbidden", so to speak...perhaps that's the case here.

Maybe so, but don't forget - you have admitted that reversing the law would not exactly result in desexualizing them. Certainly would not have that effect immediately. It would take many years, we would be OLD or DEAD by the time it happens.

I highly doubt war will break out over this issue

Me too. The House of Representatives passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act in a 389-38 vote. 36 of the minority vote were democrats, if anyone cares to know. With that kind of support on your side, nothing much will happen for 'the revolution' any time soon.

...this isn't a life or death issue here, it's just a few women wondering why their bodies should be looked at differently from guys' bodies, wondering what the big deal is about ours that we should hide them and practically feel shame for exposing any part of them other than the arms and legs.

And that's understandable to ask those questions. They should be asked and discussed in order to recognize the problems and obsessions in our society. Life/death issue? No, simply a test of passion. I suppose I have a different take on the 'be willing to die for what you believe in' concept than most people. I see honor in that, I think it makes a very strong statement if someone would give their life to make a difference in society, whatever their views are.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So breasts obscene = higher standards

Sure sounds like a punchline.

No, sounds more like you're missing my point. Breasts are still going to be considered obscene whether or not we legislate against indecent exposure.