This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Women strip for 'Go Topless Day'
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
pezz
It said they were 'public or semi-public.' That's kind of vague, but if we assume that's a government building then they have a legitimate grievance.
Look at it this way: If I say no Muslims are allowed in my house, even though Islam as a religion is just as valid as the others and there are no laws about it, then I'm kind of a jerk, but it's still my decision. I mean, it's my house. But if the government says no Muslims allowed at the local public swimming pool... that's a big deal. It's the same with any other sort of discrimination. Private individuals/businesses are jerks for engaging in it, but when the government does it it's a very serious issue.
Post by
oneforthemoney
First off, the religion example is very strong for such an issue and somewhat inappropriate. Second of all this is not the same as discriminating for race, creed or colour, it is a dress code much like a high class restaurant that expects jackets and the like.
Post by
Adamsm
Second of all this is not the same as discriminating for race, creed or colour, it is a dress code much like a high class restaurant that expects jackets and the like.
Kind of is, when it's a pool and all females are required to wear a top, but males can go around without one.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Pezz
I don't think it's quite the same as saying no Muslims allowed. One is a form of bigotry against a group of people, the other is conflicting views on what is acceptable levels of modesty. It's just that Oneforthemoney made several posts about how distracting and impractical it would be to have women topless all over the place, in the workplace, etc. and I've been trying to convey that the people who want this are looking to swim and tan shirtless, the same as men do, or be able to remove their shirt if it's hot while doing strenuous activity. They're not looking to teach 3rd grade topless, or go to the museum that way. The example he picked to make is case seemed to be a poor one, in that light, because it was still about swimming topless. I was pointing that out.
@ Oneforthemoney- It's like if people were petitioning for a law to have the drinking age lowered to 20 in the US, and I argued that they shouldn't do it because it would be really horrible to have people drunk driving, drinking on the job, drinking in class, etc., and that if this law passed they'd have to allow drinking everywhere. Then, people would tell me I was a nut, and changing who is allowed to drink, doesn't change at all where people do drink, or the fact that no place will let you drink on the job or in class. It wouldn't make it illegal for businesses to remove people who are visably intoxicated if that's their general policy. It just would change what people would be allowed to drink, at the places where people are already drinking.
If I came back with an article about 20-year-olds who were protesting by trying to drink at a bar, and said that it proved that they were trying to force people to let them drink everywhere, at any time, on the job,etc. people would think that the point of what they were telling me had gone right over my head, because the example I was using proved their case rather than mine.
In this instance, you are me. We're talking about establishments that are designed to accomodate shirtless swimmers of one gender- probably even provide places to store their shirts so they don't get wet or stolen. Since the law is already in effect, these women want equal treatment under the law to swim topless. It's not the same as saying they want to be shirtless everywhere, no matter what they're doing, and that stores can't enforce a dress code. It's saying they can't enforce a dress code by gender. If they required the men to swim with a shirt on, I think the women wouldn't have had a case.
EDIT: I think I've officially switched sides, shedding my narrow viewpoint for a more global view, and taking into account the cultural differences existing already in what is and is not appropriate in terms of female toplessness. And they say no one ever grows as a person on the internet :P
Post by
oneforthemoney
I realize that the idea of just because they can be shirtless in a public place everyone automatically will is ridiculous and am sorry I seemed to come across saying such. What I was trying to impart is that women being topless in the more common public areas such as a park is not at the point that it would be considered commonplace, and would still be seen as irregular and strange. I used the workplace as a more extreme example but it became an arguing point that led nowhere.
Yet why should those businesses be forced to accommodate what the owners saw as inappropriate activity, and were in their legal right to deny service? In essence, while under the law the women who wish to swim topless can as it corresponds to their view of what is appropriate. Yet at the same time, under the law these swimming pools were allowed to reject women if they wished to swim topless because their view of appropriate differed.
What I am trying to say is that I do not like how these people went and forced their view onto those businesses because they had a different one. I, personally, do not believe that is the right way to go about encouraging change.
Post by
Adamsm
EDIT: I think I've officially switched sides, shedding my narrow viewpoint for a more global view, and taking into account the cultural differences existing already in what is and is not appropriate in terms of female toplessness. And they say no one ever grows as a person on the internet :P
Heh, welcome to the other side; and just because you support the view of course, doesn't mean you have to actually go around topless either.
I, personally, do not believe that is the right way to go about encouraging change.No different then any other civil right movement to bring about a change.
Post by
Interest
I don't see a problem with stripping down. I'd support, although I personally wouldn't join in.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I understand that people whould have the right to be able to dictate the dress code in a privately owned business- I agree. But, I can also see it from the women's point of view- if something is legal for both men and women, can a business restrict one sex but not the other from dressing that way. It treads into the grey area of gender discrimination. If it was a store that had a general no shirt = no service policy, I'd be right there with you- it's the store's right. But to say men can go shirtless, women can't, in a place where legally there is no difference- I can understand that they may feel that it's discrimination, and protest it.
To go back to Pezz's example- lets say that, in your country, it's legal for people to wear as much clothing as they want when they swim. Not a stretch- very few places have a law against too much clothing. Lets say some public pools want you to strip down to a bathing suit, because it's better for the filters. The others, for whatever reason, don't care and say you can swim with as much clothing as you like. Both are fully withing their rights to set whatever dress code they like.
The problem would be if there was a place, where the general code was to wear as much as you want in the pool for most people. However, if you are Muslim, they make you take off everything but your bathing suit. It could be because they know it offends you to reveal that much in public, and they don't agree with your religion. It could be that they are prejudiced and consider those customers to be a threat if they have a way to conceal anything. It doesn't matter- the point is that they're applying their dress code selectively based on a classification protected by law against discrimination. The same would apply if they asked only African Americans to strip down to their bathing suits, but let anyone else in wearing whatever they want.
In the US, you can refuse service to anyone, and enact any dress code you like-excpet when you are refusing service, or making service more difficult, to people based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. It's more about equal treatment by a business regardless of gender. You can have a no shirt =no service policy, but if it's legal for women to be topless, I can see that it would be considered a violation of equal treatment under the law to allow businesses to selectively apply policies based on gender, the same way it would be to let them do it based on race, religion, etc.
That's why your example doesn't work for me- because it's a business that encourages some people to take off their shirts already.
Post by
oneforthemoney
No different then any other civil right movement to bring about a change.
Marching to influence a change of a persons cultural view of their own volition is one thing. Victimizing specific businesses until they change it's policy is another entirely.
Post by
Adamsm
No different then any other civil right movement to bring about a change.
Marching to influence a change of a persons cultural view of their own volition is one thing. Victimizing specific businesses until they change it's policy is another entirely.
....So boobs are weapons eh? Or do they cause vandalizing images for being used a public bath?
Post by
oneforthemoney
No different then any other civil right movement to bring about a change.
Marching to influence a change of a persons cultural view of their own volition is one thing. Victimizing specific businesses until they change it's policy is another entirely.
....So boobs are weapons eh? Or do they cause vandalizing images for being used a public bath?
Please do not taunt me in such a manner.
As for Elhonna, such generalizations miss the point entirely. A very high percentage of people do not agree that breasts are not sexual organs. As such the law respected their right to believe so and live their life accordingly, just as it did for women who disagreed. The difference is that those who thought breasts were sexual organs did not have their opinions respected, and in no uncertain terms were told they were wrong simply for holding such beliefs.
Post by
Adamsm
No different then any other civil right movement to bring about a change.
Marching to influence a change of a persons cultural view of their own volition is one thing. Victimizing specific businesses until they change it's policy is another entirely.
....So boobs are weapons eh? Or do they cause vandalizing images for being used a public bath?
Please do not taunt me in such a manner.
As for Elhonna, such generalizations miss the point entirely. A very high percentage of people do not agree that breasts are not sexual organs. As such the law respected their right to believe so and live their life accordingly, just as it did for women who disagreed. The difference is that those who thought breasts were sexual organs did not have their opinions respected, and in no uncertain terms were told they were wrong simply for holding such beliefs.
Primarily because they aren't considered as such; even in the public indecency laws, which speaks about private parts(genitals), they've said that breasts are not covered under that...well in most States/countries at least. There have also been cases where people did try to get the laws repealed...and for the most part, they fail miserably at it.
And it wasn't a true taunt so much as sarcastic remark that what you see as victimizing a business which does hold a gender bias against the women, since men can swim without a top on.
Post by
MrSCH
They were protesting for the right to legally go bare-chested in public - just like men can.
I'd be very happy to have laws imposed to make men cover up as well for the sake of public decency, if we want equality.
Balls to that. I love getting my top off :/
Post by
oneforthemoney
Primarily because they aren't considered as such; even in the public indecency laws, which speaks about private parts(genitals), they've said that breasts are not covered under that...well in most States/countries at least.
But not everyone holds the same belief. So are they wrong for having a differing opinion?
Post by
Adamsm
Primarily because they aren't considered as such; even in the public indecency laws, which speaks about private parts(genitals), they've said that breasts are not covered under that...well in most States/countries at least.
But not everyone holds the same belief. So are they wrong for having a differing opinion?
Not wrong, but they can't act like their opinion is a law/fact though; I disagree with people who like American Idol, but I wouldn't lobby to have it removed from the airwaves.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Primarily because they aren't considered as such; even in the public indecency laws, which speaks about private parts(genitals), they've said that breasts are not covered under that...well in most States/countries at least.
But not everyone holds the same belief. So are they wrong for having a differing opinion?
Not wrong, but they can't act like their opinion is a law/fact though; I disagree with people who like American Idol, but I wouldn't lobby to have it removed from the airwaves.
So should the same standard not apply to those people who protested the pools choice?
Post by
Adamsm
Except the law was more on the side of the protesters then on the pools side? Since again, it's legal to be topless in Sweden.
Post by
oneforthemoney
It was also legal for the pool to enforce a dress code.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is where the gender bias comes in; if the pool was going to force women to wear tops, then they should have done the same to men.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.