A REVOLUTION I think we can ALL get behind!

[Do Miss America]

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.

Um, no. They should never be considered obscene.

God did not make the human body obscene.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm not even saying they should be, but I'm telling you that indecent exposure/public nudity is considered obscene by all but 38 members of The House of Representatives. Breasts - not always obscene, certainly not in the bedroom, the mirror, you know... your private life.

 

[Do Miss America]

I'd laugh at any man who tries to use his mosquito bites for foreplay.

Apparently you haven't tried. Many men admit to enjoy having their nipples used during foreplay.

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 is a broadcast decency act. Very different. TV and radio have much different guidelines from reality. You don't get fined for cussing, telling a lewd joke, discussing certain political opinions, etc but you do on TV or radio. Even in TV you have different standards in pay TV and public TV.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Apparently you haven't tried. Many men admit to enjoy having their nipples used during foreplay.

Interesting... yet, funny.

This is a broadcast decency act. Very different. TV and radio have much different guidelines from reality. You don't get fined for cussing, telling a lewd joke, discussing certain political opinions, etc but you do on TV or radio. Even in TV you have different standards in pay TV and public TV.

Different guidelines from reality - a little bit, such as in the examples you cited - but not entirely.

 

[Do Miss America]

Different guidelines from reality - a little bit, such as in the examples you cited - but not entirely.

You're right not entirely, but that's the point I was trying to make. You were using a broadcast standard as your backing for an argument. That makes no sense.

If you are going to use a broadcast standard for a basis on how society would run then you'd be losing your freedom of speech.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

FINAL THOUGHT OF THE DAY:

Should private life and public life be the same thing?

If so, how?
Any exceptions?
If not? How so?

Not running my mouth, I'm genuinely interested in your perspectives.

 

[Do Miss America]

FINAL THOUGHT OF THE DAY:

Should private life and public life be the same thing?

No, that's why we have terms like private and public they are pretty self explainatory.

But now you're getting yourself in a whole other debate. If you are going to start down this path then you have to start asking does the government have any right to legislate your private life etc.

I don't think it has anything to do with this debate.

 

[BVS]

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.

Oh well it that case I'm sold, for we all know the House is always right.

 

[Dreadsox]

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.

Just as it was thought for a while that women and blacks were not equal even after it was legislated that they deserved to be treated equally.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Just as it was thought for a while that women and blacks were not equal even after it was legislated that they deserved to be treated equally.

Your comment is off-key. Women are given many opportunities in today's society than they and blacks were given in the 1960s. The discussion is not over PEOPLE, but body parts. I'd like to see a better example.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Oh well it that case I'm sold, for we all know the House is always right.

You were doing much better before you made that comment. And this one: . And this one: conformity is mindless.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

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.

And it was for a split second, and it was something that everybody in the audience has seen at some point and time (yes, even the children have seen them in some way, shape, or form), and nobody got hurt or died...so where's the problem? By making a big deal out of it, that's gonna draw more attention to the incident than if it hadn't been mentioned (and broadcast on the news 20 trillion times). I didn't even see the incident occur, and wouldn't have known that anything happened if nobody'd made a big deal out of it. But they did, and all that does is make kids more curious, especially if they didn't see it originally.

Besides that, I don't know what adults were so afraid of in regards to kids seeing it-I heard stories that there were kids who saw it and thought it was gross, and there were kids who saw it and perhaps laughed about it for, like, a minute, then they moved on with their lives and wished the adults would do the same. You didn't see some big outbreak of kids going around flashing every person they saw afterwards, so I don't really understand why people freaked out so much, and I really wish kids were given more credit in regards to dealing with this kind of thing-most of them will be pretty mature about it all.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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.

Men's breasts aren't attractive? Tell that to a great deal of women in this world...they'd certainly beg to differ with you.

And women's breasts aren't just sex organs, they're also a means of providing nourishment for babies, too. Besides that, they're only seen as a sexual thing to those who want to see them that way...like I said earlier, there was a guy I talked to one time who didn't find women's breasts the sexiest part of the body. And there's some other guys in this world who feel the same way.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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.

I know...I never said it would. I understand that if this were legalized, there'd always be people out there who'd be bothered by it, and that's fine, they can be bothered by it all they wish. I just have an issue with them trying to ban women from showing off whatever part of their own body they want to show off.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
It would take many years, we would be OLD or DEAD by the time it happens.

We might, we might not. And even if we are old or dead by that time, well, hey, at least there'll be a new generation of women who'll feel comfortable dressing however they want without worrying that somebody is going to try and stop them from doing so because they personally found it offensive or obscene (yeah, your comment about breasts still being seen as "obscene"-correction, they're obscene to you and to certain other people. Not everybody in this country sees them as obscene).

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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.

Well, it never hurts to try anyway. Besides that, that bugs me about the government thing-it's not their job to regulate what we can and can't see on TV, that's our personal choice to make. I don't appreciate somebody sitting there and telling me what they think I should and shouldn't be allowed to see on TV (especially considering that our very same government apparently has no problem supporting war footage being broadcast on TV...that personally bothers me, but if they can still show that...). I have a mind of my own, I should be able to decide what I'm comfortable seeing on TV. If there's anything I don't feel like watching...well, the remote control was invented for a reason, after all.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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.

I agree, I can see honor in the whole "dying for your beliefs" thing, too...shows how passionate you are about them and everything. But if people don't die for their beliefs, well, that's their choice-it doesn't mean they're any less passionate about them, they just want to find a different means of fighting for what they believe in. Nothing wrong with that, either.

Angela

 

[earthshell]

You were doing much better before you made that comment. And this one: . And this one: conformity is mindless.

and you were doing much better before your first post on this thread.

 

[earthshell]

'Should private life and public life be the same thing?'

why should they be any different? it's a shame people have to live a double life, and be a different person in private than in public. a damn shame.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

*sigh* I can't really believe breasts cause this much conversation.

Another observation. Where I am living now, breasts are considered a natural and normal part of the female body with the primary use of feeding an infant. To fulfill that task, they are often uncovered. Women wear clothing that is often loose and if you can see underneath and glimpse a breast (even a nipple) no one would stare or even blush. It's life. Now, to add another thought. I happen to be in an intimate relationship with a man of this culture. And to be frank, yes, breasts CAN have sexual meaning even within this cultural contexts. But, it seems that men here are able to distinguish between when seeing them as sexual is appropriate and when it is not. Rather like other parts of the body. Are ankles scandalous? No. But can they be sexy? Sure. Depends on the context. This is a lesson that I would think adults could learn.

 

[earthshell]

Your comment is off-key. Women are given many opportunities in today's society than they and blacks were given in the 1960s. The discussion is not over PEOPLE, but body parts. I'd like to see a better example.

so separate people from their body parts?

ouch, there goes my left nut...

 

[BVS]

You were doing much better before you made that comment.

Sarcasm. Look it up.

And this one:

Well your comment that this was in reference to actually never deserved a reply, but it was so damn ironic that I had to show my appreciation for the humor.

And this one: conformity is mindless.

Well it doesn't take thought to follow, but the other thread speaks for itself.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

*sigh* I can't really believe breasts cause this much conversation.

Another observation. Where I am living now, breasts are considered a natural and normal part of the female body with the primary use of feeding an infant. To fulfill that task, they are often uncovered. Women wear clothing that is often loose and if you can see underneath and glimpse a breast (even a nipple) no one would stare or even blush. It's life. Now, to add another thought. I happen to be in an intimate relationship with a man of this culture. And to be frank, yes, breasts CAN have sexual meaning even within this cultural contexts. But, it seems that men here are able to distinguish between when seeing them as sexual is appropriate and when it is not. Rather like other parts of the body. Are ankles scandalous? No. But can they be sexy? Sure. Depends on the context. This is a lesson that I would think adults could learn.

.

Thank you.

Angela

 

[BVS]

Your comment is off-key. Women are given many opportunities in today's society than they and blacks were given in the 1960s. The discussion is not over PEOPLE, but body parts. I'd like to see a better example.

Actually his comment was pretty damn on. Yes we've come a long way from the 60's but nowhere near where we should be. Your comments are a prime example. This discussion is about PEOPLE, people are the sum of everything body, soul, and mind.

 

[Dreadsox]

Your comment is off-key. Women are given many opportunities in today's society than they and blacks were given in the 1960s. The discussion is not over PEOPLE, but body parts. I'd like to see a better example.

I feel my comment is DEAD on!

Before legislation, the opinions many held....ie Equal Rights for African-Americans....had to be legislated, and enforced because even with legislation, people held to their prejudices about them.

And, I agree with you that they are given many opportunities, but I am sorry to disagree with you, that just because a woman shows her breasts there are going to be riots on the beaches with men with raging erections and they cannot control themselves. Sorry, but it does not happen that way.

Equal rights is equal rights.

 

[Dreadsox]

*sigh* I can't really believe breasts cause this much conversation.

Seriously, no kidding without the words Bush, Gay, Homosexual, Marriage.....

I am rather proud of it.

 

[Irvine511]

bush ... gay ... homosexual ... marriage ... gay ... ashcroft ... iraq ... bush ... gay ... gay ... bush ... marriage ... gay ... mayr cheney ... marriage ... homosexuality ... cheney ... jesus ... gay

 

[sallycinnamon78]

...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

Too right. well said Angela.

Oh wah...

I'd wish they would stop wasting their lives and come up with a cause that makes sense.

Yes. Incidentally - this reminds me of the arsing Spice Girls and "girl power" - essentially, our right, as women, to wear micro-miniskirts and get our tits out... for no other reason than to make blokes fancy a bit, which in my opinion has nothing to do with personal freedom. I agree completely that we should wear what we want, when we want, show off whatever we like, and be happy with it... but I could do without the Spice Girls' type of feminism. I don't know about any of you other ladies, but I personally have always worn whatever the hell I want, while spending my time attempting to deal with more important issues affecting women.

I remember reading about a little girl, back in 1997, in some newspaper or other. She was only 5. She had decided at the age of 4, that her aim in life was to marry someone just like David Beckham - she was obviously unambitious from a young age. This kid kept saying that the reason Victoria (PoshSpice) was with David, was because she was so pretty, and so THIN, and wore loads of make-up, and dyed her hair... and that she wished that she was just like Victoria, her role model. I know she was only a little girl, but I did find that quite worrying.My little niece, who is two and a half, knows better than that. As a youngster, I loved dressing up and messing around with hairstyles, etc, like many little girls - but I never, ever thought for a second that I had to do that if I wanted a man later in life. It's bloody scary, to me.

I'm probably taking this all too seriously, but it just reminds me of a comment I read in an article years ago, about "young women being modelled to meet the expectations and desires of young men". Which is extreme, but in many ways, I think it's very true - and it hurts. The whole thing sucks: we're all human, we're all someone's daughter, or someone's son.

I hope that made some sense! I'm not at my most articulate at this hour of night (midnight here).

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Exactly. I don't remember any of my male teachers walking around the classroom without a shirt

I don't ever wanna imagine that!

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Then why the charge for the right to do this???




This is not a blame game, but one of consequences. If a high school male takes off a shirt during PE, and a female student does the same, the discussion of equal rights will be drown out by the hoopla created by the topless female.

Consequences? Such as what, precisely? Ah well, girls, we'd better not show any flesh at all, just in case it raises "hoopla". That, generally speaking, says a hell of a lot more about men than women. It's just ridiculous, pointless, petty, and discriminatory.

Good points, it's just perception, what makes a guy with his shirt off not obscene, and a girl without her shirt on obscene?

I remember having this discussion with a former boyfriend of mine, and banging on about my frustration and anger that women who enjoy showing off their bodies are frequently said to be "asking for it". My ex pointed out that, in that case, the same rule would apply to men wearing cycle shorts - if women are inviting attack by wearing skimpy clothes, it is no different than a topless/scantily clad male being attacked by a guy who happens to be gay.

I remember telling another friend this... and she thought I was being homophobic (which I have never been in my life and never will be - I know you people have more sense than to think that). The way I see it, you get psychos who are of all sexual orientations, preying on the vulnerable.

Very true....

When I take my shirt off, my wife gets out the razor....

When she takes her shirt off.......

There is a bunch of hoopla.......hours and hours....some times days.....

weekends.....

Of course, my Dr. warned me about the effects of theose four hour....


Ummmmm

Never mind.

FYM is turning into Dr. Ruth

If you wanted to get behind a serious women's cause that could actually benefit society, I would think fighting for equal pay in the workforce is a good start. This thread is a joke.

Agreed - despite having posted several times in this thread!!!

A guy can get aroused just by seeing a pretty girl in a tight sweater. And if some jerk tries anything on her, that's his problem, not hers, and he's the one who should be dealt with.

No arguments there whatoever. It's called COMMON SENSE, and you are spot on, as far as I'm concerned.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Irvine511



well, earlier you wrote: "Actually, I was argued that I was conditioned to find them sexual. It's like trying to lose your accent, I don't think I could be as faithful as I desire to be to the woman I love if this became acceptable."


it's a very boys-will-be-boys argument. that women need to be covered up so they will retain their mystery and allure for the menfolk, as if the reason for feminine modesty is not to drive the men crazy with lust and desire -- basically implying that it is up to women and society to regulate and control the female figure because men are deep down lustful creatures and can't control themselves. sort of a "women, watch your men!" argument. [/QUOTE]

Irvine... you have just said everything that I've been trying to say in my last few posts.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I feel my comment is DEAD on!

Go on thinking that if you want to...

Yet it seems any cause/agenda uses the Civil Rights movement as an attempt to back it up.

Before legislation, the opinions many held....ie Equal Rights for African-Americans....had to be legislated, and enforced because even with legislation, people held to their prejudices about them.

So let me get this straight. Because I feel the law is suitable for a breast-obsessed society, this means I'm holding prejudices? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the point you are trying to make.

And, I agree with you that they are given many opportunities, but I am sorry to disagree with you, that just because a woman shows her breasts there are going to be riots on the beaches with men with raging erections and they cannot control themselves. Sorry, but it does not happen that way.

No riots, hopefully never any... all that stuff is exaggeration. I never said anything about riots. Congrats on the success of your thread and all - yes I mean that, but at least 3 pages are devoted to my "caveman" stance on the revolution. I'm not complaining, I think it's funny.

Equal rights is equal rights.

My workplace allows women to wear earrings, but not men. Should I sue them? Are you going to use this defense for me?

"Equality"... "Revolution".... Let's put two and two together:

Or we could just eliminate the buzzwords and tell it as it is.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Sarcasm. Look it up.

Let me correct myself, you were doing better on here before you went for that 'caveman' cheapshot.

Well your comment that this was in reference to actually never deserved a reply, but it was so damn ironic that I had to show my appreciation for the humor.

Thanks for the compliment. If everyone on earth were like you, I could be a filthy rich comedian. Oh wait, that means big brother would interfere with me having too much success.

Well it doesn't take thought to follow, but the other thread speaks for itself.

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

 

[Macfistowannabe]

so separate people from their body parts?

ouch, there goes my left nut...

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I said.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

[q]Women Bare Breasts in Prince Charles Visit

2 hours, 42 minutes ago

By RAY LILLEY, Associated Press Writers

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - Two women who bared their breasts in protest were arrested and dragged away as Britain's Prince Charles arrived for an official function Tuesday in New Zealand's capital.

Photo
AP Photo



The two women, described by police as taking part in "unrelated" protests, were later charged with disorderly behavior.

One woman climbed atop a wall, bared her chest and shouted "shame, shame" as Charles walked toward the City Art Gallery doorway. The woman, exposed from the waist up, was grabbed by two uniformed police officers, arrested and marched from the scene as the prince was led into the building.

In an apparent protest against the monarchy, the woman had the message "Get your colonial shame off my breasts" scrawled across her chest and stomach.

Reporters said the prince appeared to look in the woman's direction and smile as he entered the gallery.

Earlier in another part of the Civic Square, a bare-chested woman carrying a small child was hauled away by plain-clothed police moments before the prince would have been confronted by her as he greeted a line of well-wishers.

The woman, also bare from the waist up, was dragged away shouting, "I just want to feed my baby."

Charles did not appear to notice the woman, local media said.

Both women arrested were later freed on bail, police said.

In another apparently linked protest, five anti-monarchists stood atop a wall with banners reading "Death to the monarchy" and "Honor the treaty," a reference to British crown breaches of New Zealand's founding treaty with the indigenous Maori people.

A woman with a bullhorn chanted, "Shame on the British monarchy, shame for years of colonialism, shame for years of genocide."

The protesters shouted "parasites, parasites" as Charles walked through the city's Civic Square greeting some of the more than 600 people gathered to see him. The protests, the first of his five-day visit to New Zealand, caused no disruption.

The prince was on the third day of a five-day royal visit to New Zealand, a former British colony that retains Britain's monarch as head of state.

A growing republican movement wants to end the link and replace the monarch with a New Zealander. Some monarchists also oppose Charles becoming the nation's future king. [/q]

 

[BVS]

My workplace allows women to wear earrings, but not men. Should I sue them? Are you going to use this defense for me?

One you're born with one you aren't.

But also there's the fact that the workplace is much different than that outside the workplace. No one in this thread is saying women should be able to walk around toppless at work(unless of course her work happen to be at a topless place). Businesses have dress codes, end of story. Some allow men to wear earrings some don't.

They aren't even comparible.

"Equality"... "Revolution".... Let's put two and two together: