A REVOLUTION I think we can ALL get behind!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
Topfree Equal Rights!!!!!!!


[Q]Public exposure laws hinder gender equality
To combat sexism, women should be permitted to show as much skin as men
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jessica Ellis

Men, be careful, disturbing news: A law is pending saying that if you carry extra fat on your torso, you may not go out in public without a shirt. Oh, no, just kidding – it only counts if the extra fat is on your chest, and you happen to be a woman.

I don't remember exactly when, but at some point between the age of 5 and 10, I had to stop running through the sprinklers in just underwear and put on a swimsuit. My boy cousins didn't. On hot, sweaty days in gym, the boys could strip to their Herbert Slater Junior High shorts; I couldn't even get down to a sports bra. Now Liana Johnsson, a public defender from Ventura County, has taken a "breast equality" plea to Sacramento in order to secure equal rights on this subject for women, only to be essentially laughed off the stage. When asked to comment by the Los Angeles Times, Margita Thompson, spokesperson for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, replied, "You've got to be kidding me."

I certainly won't claim this is California's biggest problem – we have prisons, health care and pollution to worry about. But suddenly, for the first time in my liberal California upbringing, I am feeling the true sting of sexism. I brought this issue up recently with a male friend and foolishly expected a show of support for the clearly gender-biased law that could land a woman a citation for indecent exposure. His argument seemed to be that women's breasts might incite men to harass or molest the offending 34Cs and their owner. That indeed would be a terrible consequence, but I propose that the burden of fault would then lay with the attacker, not the attacked.

The other argument I hear frequently raised on this issue is that of offending others. First, let me state that anyone who listens to a baby scream for a half-hour in a restaurant will begin to beg that its mother put something in its mouth. That aside, never once in my 23 years have I heard tell of a breast that swore, made a derogatory remark about another person, or forcibly caused someone else to look at it. My mouth can (and has) done most of those things, and I am very careful to watch my tongue around those who would be offended. My job on earth is not to see how many people I can infuriate, but I didn't cultivate my breasts on purpose; they just grew there. I didn't have any say in it, yet I am told they may cause offense. Well, heaven forbid. Then I should cover them. Cover my breasts, my legs, my mouth and my ankles, because during the Renaissance those could throw men into a fever pitch – cover up any part of me that could possibly offend anyone or push anyone into an apoplectic fit of lust.

But wait, it gets better: Currently, a woman convicted of an indecent exposure misdemeanor could have to register as a sex offender under Megan's Law. Breasts are not only a threat to male sanity, they are a danger to the public!

No case like this has been brought to court, and experts claim the possibility is very low, but their reasons for why it is unlikely are missing the point.

Joe Rosato, a parks department spokesperson, points out that rangers are not in the habit of giving citations to topless females. Rosato says that instead the rangers ask the women to put their tops on, and usually it's 100 percent compliance. Well, when an enforcement officer asks me to do anything, I usually comply 100 percent, too – particularly if what I am doing is against state laws. It's not surprising that women comply; what is surprising is that California maintains and defends a gender-discriminating law.

We've fought for equity in voting, education, pay and jobs, yet we're still fighting to be able to be comfortable and safe in the female body. Society will not crumble if I take my top off at the beach, but the politically correct facade of gender equality will certainly never solidify if such a law is permitted to remain on the books.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellis is a third-year theater student.
[/Q]:applaud:

http://www.tera.ca/#Jan23
 
u2bonogirl said:
:lol: Ive never heard anybody complain about seeing my breasts!

I can complain about anything.....hehe....try me.....

OUCH....wife just hit me with a shoe!!!!!:ohmy:
 
What about us less endowed girls?

I mean, when I take off my shirt, I look pretty much the same as a boy... :macdevil: In fact, a buff Ben Affleck probably has more than I do. What's the difference, I ask you! :sexywink:
 
Well, ben is a 44B cup.....

but he has hair.....so....that could be a deal breaker with me.
 
Oh wah...

Whine about not being allowed to show your boobs. I'd wish they would stop wasting their lives and come up with a cause that makes sense.

PS: That site has some of the ugliest women alive, not to be rude, but to forewarn you. After seeing that, I know surely why I wouldn't bother supporting it.

But hey, if Dreadsox wants to, he should be allowed without his wife throwing shoes at him... or not. :wink:
 
Actually the shoe throwing did not hurt I am so drugged up....

What women?
 
AvsGirl41 said:
What about us less endowed girls?

I mean, when I take off my shirt, I look pretty much the same as a boy... :macdevil: In fact, a buff Ben Affleck probably has more than I do. What's the difference, I ask you! :sexywink:

get pregnant...that changes everything....so my wife says!
 
Shoot, i di dnot even notice that....lol

I was reading the articles...

seriously.
 
And I fail to understand why you would be banned.....

it kind of proves my point about the whole thing
 
I wonder if the pope would find this worthy of the "ideology of evil"
 
Macfistowannabe said:
http://www.tera.ca/#Jan23

I'd put them up, but I'd probably get banned. But dude... did you have enough drinks yet?




tell the truth


you just don't like religious people












cover.gif
 
His argument seemed to be that women's breasts might incite men to harass or molest the offending 34Cs and their owner. That indeed would be a terrible consequence, but I propose that the burden of fault would then lay with the attacker, not the attacked.

The other argument I hear frequently raised on this issue is that of offending others. First, let me state that anyone who listens to a baby scream for a half-hour in a restaurant will begin to beg that its mother put something in its mouth. That aside, never once in my 23 years have I heard tell of a breast that swore, made a derogatory remark about another person, or forcibly caused someone else to look at it. My mouth can (and has) done most of those things, and I am very careful to watch my tongue around those who would be offended. My job on earth is not to see how many people I can infuriate, but I didn't cultivate my breasts on purpose; they just grew there. I didn't have any say in it, yet I am told they may cause offense. Well, heaven forbid. Then I should cover them. Cover my breasts, my legs, my mouth and my ankles, because during the Renaissance those could throw men into a fever pitch – cover up any part of me that could possibly offend anyone or push anyone into an apoplectic fit of lust.

:applaud:...thank you, thank you, THANK YOU. My sentiments exactly. I personally have no desire to parade around town with next to no clothing, but I do not for the life of me understand why in the world it's such a bad thing if other women want to do so. It's a human body. Nothing more, nothing less. I would go on, but this quoted part of the article pretty much summed it all up.

Angela
 
This law was passed in Ontario almost 10 years ago

http://www.legalfreedom.com/topfree/

" In 1996 the Province of Ontario, Canada's most populous provice, became legally topfree due to a criminal court challenge by Gwen Jacob. Because the highest court in Ontario was interpreting a Canadian federal law, this case has set an important precedent for all of the other provinces in Canada. Attempts to change the law to re-criminalize women have not been supported by Canadian voters."

I have seen very few women exercise their rights, but it is nice to know that we can if we choose to.
 
I know this is kinda off topic, but did anyone recently read about the restaurant (in NYC I think) where you eat nude? I'm sorry, but there are some places I do not want to see naked people. Hopefully the chefs aren't nude also.:wink:
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


:applaud:...thank you, thank you, THANK YOU. My sentiments exactly. I personally have no desire to parade around town with next to no clothing, but I do not for the life of me understand why in the world it's such a bad thing if other women want to do so. It's a human body. Nothing more, nothing less. I would go on, but this quoted part of the article pretty much summed it all up.

Angela
finally someone gets it.
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


:applaud:...thank you, thank you, THANK YOU. My sentiments exactly. I personally have no desire to parade around town with next to no clothing, but I do not for the life of me understand why in the world it's such a bad thing if other women want to do so. It's a human body. Nothing more, nothing less. I would go on, but this quoted part of the article pretty much summed it all up.

Angela

You see no consequences if this were permitted, even in a high school?
 
Back
Top Bottom