A REVOLUTION I think we can ALL get behind!

[BVS]

Oh wait, that means big brother would interfere with me having too much success.

That's the biggest load of crap.

Ok you thought my caveman pic was a cheapshot at you, fine than believe that as you may. And if that's what you believe then I apologize.

But don't ever bring cheapshots in from other threads again. If you'd like to discuss with me something of meaning do it in the thread which it belongs, you just cheapen your arguments and display a huge lack of knowledge of who I am when doing so. This is not the first time you've done this and I will take action if it happens again.

It sure does, and not everyone on it agrees with you that 'conformity is mindless.'

You have grossly misinterpreted that comment, will you please just get off it. Once again keep it in the thread to which it belongs, hence why I started it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

That's the biggest load of crap.

Ok you thought my caveman pic was a cheapshot at you, fine than believe that as you may. And if that's what you believe then I apologize.

But don't ever bring cheapshots in from other threads again. If you'd like to discuss with me something of meaning do it in the thread which it belongs, you just cheapen your arguments and display a huge lack of knowledge of who I am when doing so. This is not the first time you've done this and I will take action if it happens again.

Sarcasm. Look it up.

Sure, your caveman thing was a bit of a cheapshot, but I'm not crying my ass off over it.

You have grossly misinterpreted that comment, will you please just get off it. Once again keep it in the thread to which it belongs, hence why I started it.

So much commotion over a reply you knew you were asking for.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Kill the buzzwords once and for all, and tell it as it is. That's my point, loud and clear.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Thanks, sallycinnamon78, for the kind words .

Angela

 

[BVS]

Kill the buzzwords once and for all, and tell it as it is. That's my point, loud and clear.

So it's like communism? Please explain.

I don't think it's that loud or clear.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So it's like communism? Please explain.

I don't think it's that loud or clear.

"No wonder communism is a dirty word today. We have to restore its true meaning - world revolution, workers' democracy, equality and real freedom." - http://www.worldrevolution.org.uk/oldsite/pages/ideas_pages/communism.html

My point is that the words "equality", "revolution", and "women's rights" can in fact be taken to extremes. In my view, they are taken to extremes. They are used to defend pretty much anything. I'd rather hear the case for what it is without all the nonsense.

 

[BVS]

"No wonder communism is a dirty word today. We have to restore its true meaning - world revolution, workers' democracy, equality and real freedom." - http://www.worldrevolution.org.uk/oldsite/pages/ideas_pages/communism.html

Yeah that's the biggest stretch I've seen in this thread. I'd even venture to say, not even anything having to do with this.

My point is that the words "equality", "revolution", and "women's rights" can in fact be taken to extremes. In my view, they are taken to extremes. They are used to defend pretty much anything. I'd rather hear the case for what it is without all the nonsense.

Well I'd like to hear a good reason as to why not pass this law but haven't heard one.

Keeping the burden on sexual offenders. Good thing.

Treating men and women the same. Good thing.

Removing the 'obscene' stigma.
Good thing.

Will it desexualize the female body? No.

Will women walk around everywhere topless? No.

Is there a reason to keep it obscene?
No.

 

[Do Miss America]

I can't believe this thread is still going. 15 pages and no one's been able to defend why the law should remain the way it is.

 

[nbcrusader]

I can't believe this thread is still going. 15 pages and no one's been able to defend why the law should remain the way it is.

The law reflects our culture. Simple as that.


So far, all the arguments against the law are predicated on a change in culture that must occur. You've got to come up with a better argument than "well, society needs to change".

 

[Do Miss America]

The law reflects our culture. Simple as that.


So far, all the arguments against the law are predicated on a change in culture that must occur. You've got to come up with a better argument than "well, society needs to change".

I guess protecting women isn't enough?

Laws do not always reflect culture. Laws are evolving and changing all the time.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I guess protecting women isn't enough?

Laws do not always reflect culture. Laws are evolving and changing all the time.

"Protecting women"... as if it's a life and death situation. This law does no harm to you, unless of course you have trouble keeping your clothes on.

 

[nbcrusader]

I guess protecting women isn't enough?

What is the harm (using Moonlit_Angel's definition) to women by this law?

 

[Do Miss America]

"Protecting women"... as if it's a life and death situation. This law does no harm to you, unless of course you have trouble keeping your clothes on.

Well when someone you know is assaulted and the perp gets off due to "the way she was dressed", then you may change your mind.

And yes it happens. This would eliminate that. It may not be life or death but sexual assault is a serious matter. Step out of your small box for a second and get over your fear that everyone's going to walk around topless.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

"Yeah that's the biggest stretch I've seen in this thread. I'd even venture to say, not even anything having to do with this."

And the reason being, to show how buzzwords are used and abused. How is your argument based on women's rights? It's not legal, and surely I'm not the only one who doesn't think it's right for our society. Some would refer to me as "anti-choice" for example because I don't "support women's rights." And that equality talk is an abuse of the term, plain and simple. I think it's degrading to anyone who disagrees with you, but has fought for true equality. I've used equal pay as an example enough to wear out a tape player.

"Well I'd like to hear a good reason as to why not pass this law but haven't heard one."

There's also no good reason to why we should pass one. Liberals don't like laws that are based on gender differences and restrictions, so I'm not suprised you would think that.

"Keeping the burden on sexual offenders. Good thing."
Punish sex offenders harshly, plain and simple. Castrate them if necessary.

"Treating men and women the same. Good thing."
Men and women are not the same. Again, I can care less if I'm not allowed to wear lipstick or earrings to work. I can care less about wearing a dress in public and being pointed at. I can care less if I have to put all the food on the table. I can care less if I have to mow the lawn every few days.

"Removing the 'obscene' stigma.
Good thing."
Your private life if your business, your public life is not always only your business.

"Will it desexualize the female body? No."
With a near 50% divorce rate, I don't think this is going to help it.

"Will women walk around everywhere topless? No."
There are exceptions. Anyone who's seen Jerry Springer realizes that.

"Is there a reason to keep it obscene?
No."
Does everyone want to see bare breasts, by anyone of any age? No.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Well when someone you know is assaulted and the perp gets off due to "the way she was dressed", then you may change your mind.

Great example, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

And yes it happens. This would eliminate that.

How so?

It may not be life or death but sexual assault is a serious matter. Step out of your small box for a second and get over your fear that everyone's going to walk around topless.

"Small box..." cut the crap. No fear involved, I see reason for the law because it's suitable for a breast-obsessed society.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What is the harm (using Moonlit_Angel's definition) to women by this law?

Moonlit_Angel, we love you, but I too found your definition a little over the top.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The law reflects our culture. Simple as that.

So far, all the arguments against the law are predicated on a change in culture that must occur. You've got to come up with a better argument than "well, society needs to change".

Dead on.

You even get a Bono for that.

 

[Do Miss America]

Great example, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Has everything to do with it.

How so?

Have you been ignoring what so many have been saying.

If this law goes into effect men will no longer get away with using the "she was asking for it dressed like that" defense. Right now breast are criminalized. Men have gotten away with blaming the women for the assault by claiming they were inticed by their scantily clad body(showing too much of that illegal skin). The skin is no longer illegal and whatever someone wears will never be an excuse. If you take the crime out of the female body no man will ever be able to use that excuse again.

It takes all burden away from women and puts the burden back on the true perpetrator.

 

[BVS]

It's not legal,

A lot of things have been legal in the past. Because it's a law now is never a valid reason that it has to be that way. Every law should be revaluated from time to time.

Liberals don't like laws that are based on gender differences and restrictions, so I'm not suprised you would think that.

You're stereotyping is old.

Men and women are not the same. Again, I can care less if I'm not allowed to wear lipstick or earrings to work. I can care less about wearing a dress in public and being pointed at.

We're not talking about work.

We're not talking about getting pointed at.

I can care less if I have to put all the food on the table. I can care less if I have to mow the lawn every few days.

That's pretty sexists. You've never heard of a woman that puts the food on the table or mowing the yard? Why would you even bring this up?

With a near 50% divorce rate, I don't think this is going to help it.

So wait divorce is about breasts? Divorce rates have nothing to do with breasts and little to even do with sex.

Does everyone want to see bare breasts, by anyone of any age? No.

This has nothing to do with wanting to see bare breasts? I or anyone else can see bare breast if they wanted to.

 

[nbcrusader]

Well when someone you know is assaulted and the perp gets off due to "the way she was dressed", then you may change your mind.

No, this does not happen.

No one has been found not guilty based on the way someone dressed. Slime ball attorneys may try to introduce it as evidence, but it is almost always rejected outright.

Your suggestion is an oversimplification of the criminal justice system.

 

[BVS]

No, this does not happen.

No one has been found not guilty based on the way someone dressed. Slime ball attorneys may try to introduce it as evidence, but it is almost always rejected outright.

Come on now. This doesn't happen?

BS

 

[nbcrusader]

Come on now. This doesn't happen?

BS

Show me a case where a woman's manner of dress resulted in a not guilty verdict.

It is an old stereotype.

Shield laws have placed restrictions on a broad spectrum of imformation that can be used in trial. A lawyer must have a specific, valid basis to introduce such evidence. It is not easy.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

A lot of things have been legal in the past. Because it's a law now is never a valid reason that it has to be that way. Every law should be revaluated from time to time.

If you're going to overturn a law, you better have a better reason than "society should be this way..."

That's pretty sexists. You've never heard of a woman that puts the food on the table or mowing the yard? Why would you even bring this up?

Sexist? no. Yes I've heard of that, but if I had a partner who wanted me to take on those jobs, rather than wash dishes, I wouldn't complain about it. This entire thread is devoted to complaining about a law that really isn't too hard to follow.

So wait divorce is about breasts? Divorce rates have nothing to do with breasts and little to even do with sex.

Divorce is often about lust after others. Divorce is often about wanting something else. You've never thought breasts are used to attract men?

This has nothing to do with wanting to see bare breasts? I or anyone else can see bare breast if they wanted to.

If they want to, not if they have to.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Actually, my dad told me a story of a case in...Wisconsin, I believe it was, one time in which a judge said that a guy who attacked a girl could go free because the girl should have known better than to dress the way she did, she was essentially asking for the attack. So yes, it has happened.

As for the "harm" definition...it's really not that hard a definition to understand, people. If there is an activity occurring in which someone is physically hurt, or killed, or forced to do something against their will, that activity needs to stop. Since breasts have not done a single one of those things to anybody else, I don't exactly see why people are so scared of the idea of letting women expose them if they wish. This whole thing bugs women because we're made to feel like we should be ashamed for exposing our chests, whereas guys can expose their chests and nobody chides them for doing so...nobody's given me a logical reason as to why guys can do that without shame, but girls can't. It's just a body, like the guy's body is just a body, and each body only means something to those who want it to mean something to them. Otherwise, they're both just bodies, and they aren't doing anyone any harm by just existing and being exposed, so I really, really fail to understand why people think they need to be hidden away.

By the way, I also remember hearing that there were three cases in which women were brought to trial for "indecent exposure" for exposing their chests, and in each case, the judge ruled that the women were free to do that, since the guys could do that. Just something else to throw in here.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

But, by your own definition, there is no harm is a law that requires a woman to keep her breasts covered.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

If you don't mind, I'd like to bring back your definition.

Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
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.

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

Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
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.).

I would hate to believe that any more than 20% of the population believes that non-violent crimes have no place for legislation. A creepy man at your doorbell every night may not physically harm you, but he has no business at your doorstep.

 

[Irvine511]

wasn't there a recent case in Italy where a woman was raped, but she was ruled against because she was wearing jeans, and the judge reasoned that the jeans were too tight to have been removed without consent?

just tossing that out there ...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Actually, my dad told me a story of a case in...Wisconsin, I believe it was, one time in which a judge said that a guy who attacked a girl could go free because the girl should have known better than to dress the way she did, she was essentially asking for the attack. So yes, it has happened.

[...]

By the way, I also remember hearing that there were three cases in which women were brought to trial for "indecent exposure" for exposing their chests, and in each case, the judge ruled that the women were free to do that, since the guys could do that. Just something else to throw in here.

Angela

I would be happy to look over these cases if you can look it up. For the second paragraph, sometimes it depends on the context. It could've been a public nudity event, for all we know.

 

[BVS]

Show me a case where a woman's manner of dress resulted in a not guilty verdict.

It is an old stereotype.

Shield laws have placed restrictions on a broad spectrum of imformation that can be used in trial. A lawyer must have a specific, valid basis to introduce such evidence. It is not easy.

I can't find the specific case, I was going to post it here. This happened to a girl I went to college with. It made big new in Texas back in 95 or 96. A girl was assaulted at a frat party and the two boys got off. The judge claimed there was no case for the girl shouldn't dress like that at a frat party.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

But, by your own definition, there is no harm is a law that requires a woman to keep her breasts covered.

No-like I said, if people insist women remain covered up, fine. But then we should do that with the guys, too. If girls can't expose their chests, guys shouldn't be able to, either. If guys can, girls should be able to. It's merely a fairness thing.

Also, Macfistowannabe...course, then again, the guy could look creepy, but looks can be deceiving-he could turn out to be a really nice guy who needs help, too. I know there are some insanely cruel, sick people in this world, but I'd just hate to give up any sort of trust on humans in general. Until he actually starts to hurt me or anyone I know, he hasn't exactly committed a crime just by appearing at my doorstep, seeing as we don't know exactly what he's there for.

And I'll ask my dad where he found those cases, and see if I can pull them up for you.

Angela