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
ElhonnaDS
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.
Well that's good. I have enough trouble maintaining my right to keep my shirt on at home- it'd be annoying if he could claim it was a public service for me to remove it outside :P
@ Oneforthemoney- Actually, it wasn't a generalization at all. It was a very clear case of the double standard you're defending the company's right to enforce, applied to any other situation where a company's policies treat one group differently than another.
If it's your personal opinion that an interracial couple shouldn't be married, you're not allowed as a business owner (at least in the US) to refuse to allow them to shop together in your store. If you don't agree that Hinduism is the right religion, you can't refuse to let Hindu's live in your building.
The company can enforce a dress code. They can't enforce a dress code based on certain nationalities, religions, ethnicities, or genders. Personal opinion is allowed, but in most countries with civil rights legislation on the books, they recognize that a person or a business can't use their personal opinion to break laws about discrimination or refuse equal protection under the law. Just because YOU don't think it's the same, doesn't mean that I don't think it's the same, or that those women didn't think they were being discriminated against.
If a country has laws on the books that businesses are allowed to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc., then most people would agree the laws are worth protesting. We put embargos on countries for things like that. I'd be interested to see if Sweden has laws on the books that protect people from being discriminated against by businesses. If they do, then the argument could be made that, while having a dress code is legal, the way in which they were applying it was illegal, and the women were trying to draw attention to that.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Then they would be forced to conform to another person's social belief, the standards of which are relatively new for most people.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
They'd be forced to conform to what the law says is acceptable- it's a little different.
Post by
Adamsm
Aye, belief has nothing to do with the law, unless said law people are very out there: Again, just for going around with their breasts showing, some States could charge a woman with the same degree they would to a sexual predator.
Beyond that though, since a large number of countries are accepting the Toplessness as a norm, any declaration of belief against it is merely an opinion, but not a fact.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Law is belief put on paper and enforced. That is why laws change.
That people are punished because they have a differing belief to a mindset that only recently has come to the fore and are being shoehorned into adapting to the new thought process is wrong. That law in those circumstances could be seen as a transitory process until people become more used to it.
I'm not saying the pool was in the right for using the system for bias. I'm saying the protestors were in the wrong for forcing a relatively radical new mindset on them.
Post by
Jubilee
Aye, belief has nothing to do with the law, unless said law people are very out there:
I disagree with this, I believe all law is founded on belief, even mundane things like taxes. Every law is dependent on some form of belief about what is fair or just or right or good.
Post by
Adamsm
I'm not saying the pool was in the right for using the system for bias. I'm saying the protestors were in the wrong for forcing a relatively radical new mindset on them.
New mindset? In a country that it was already legal to be topless in?
Post by
oneforthemoney
Not in a legal sense. As in personal views.
Post by
Adamsm
Not in a legal sense. As in personal views.
Which again, doesn't really have much to do with the laws themselves. As I said earlier in this thread, in regards to the female jogger, she doesn't turn me on, but my girlfriend in a tight outfit does; the women who are going topless aren't doing so to be 'sexual' or 'seductive' but just to be out there, same as men.
So, personal views/opinions only shade the actual discussion about it, but not the legal side; as shown in that other link I had, where they had multiple cases ruling in favor of the toplessness, even when people tried to get the laws retracted, they were ignored or out right insulted, so even on a province/state/country side of things, it seems like the idea of women going topless isn't looked down on as much as people make it out to be.
Post by
oneforthemoney
Not in a legal sense. As in personal views.
Which again, doesn't really have much to do with the laws themselves. As I said earlier in this thread, in regards to the female jogger, she doesn't turn me on, but my girlfriend in a tight outfit does; the women who are going topless aren't doing so to be 'sexual' or 'seductive' but just to be out there, same as men.
Which is your
personal view
. Belief and views have everything to do with laws. It's how they're made, enforced, dictated and rewritten according to how the world changes.
Post by
Adamsm
Which is your
personal view
. Belief and views have everything to do with laws. It's how they're made, enforced, dictated and rewritten according to how the world changes.
So then it seems a lot agree with my view....as again, Topfreedom is a world wide occurrence, and those areas where the laws are skewed the other way, and make it so that a topless woman is treated as a sex criminal, are the laws that definitely need to be fixed.
Post by
Squishalot
I'll go back to a question I posed earlier. If you're going to make toplessness legal, why do you draw the line above the belt?
Post by
Adamsm
I'll go back to a question I posed earlier. If you're going to make toplessness legal, why do you draw the line above the belt?
Because the privates are the actual sexual organs, even under the public indecency laws.
Post by
Squishalot
Because the privates are the actual sexual organs,
even under the public indecency laws
.
You're trying to change the public indecency laws, aren't you? Isn't that what the whole 'Go Topless Day' is about?
Post by
Adamsm
Because the privates are the actual sexual organs,
even under the public indecency laws
.
You're trying to change the public indecency laws, aren't you? Isn't that what the whole 'Go Topless Day' is about?
The laws are already changing though Squish;
10 successful cases of toplessness
, and with each win, the laws get another point that is altering those laws to make sure that women who have had sex charges made against them because of being topless, won't keep happening.
Post by
Squishalot
Because the privates are the actual sexual organs,
even under the public indecency laws
.
You're trying to change the public indecency laws, aren't you? Isn't that what the whole 'Go Topless Day' is about?
The laws are already changing though Squish;
10 successful cases of toplessness
, and with each win, the laws get another point that is altering those laws to make sure that women who have had sex charges made against them because of being topless, won't keep happening.
You're missing the point that your argument is circular. The original indecency laws outlaw female breasts and vaginas. What argument do you have that the new indecency laws stop at vaginas? Your previous response isn't a suitable answer, because 'even under the public indecency laws' at present, breasts are still outlawed.
Post by
Adamsm
The Indecent Exposure definition/description
; it does state breasts on it, but that can also depend on where it is as well; as locations that have dealt with topless issues are taken into consideration.
As for where, from that article, and the page itself, since quite a few countries do make allowances for public nudity in there in regards to certain areas.
However, the fact that this whole thread, was started by Facesmasher in a spam, and didn't actually link an article in regards to it, we don't know what it was really meant to protest about and where it was meant to be.
Post by
Squishalot
Of course, but my point is - why do you believe that the indecency laws should draw a line at the belt, seeing as you think breasts are OK, but vaginas aren't? You're dodging the question.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
Of course, but my point is - why do you believe that the indecency laws should draw a line at the belt, seeing as you think breasts are OK, but vaginas aren't? You're dodging the question.
I honestly don't give a crap; if someone wants to walk around buck naked, more power to them. What I dislike are the states where a woman is treated the same as someone who has raped another person, just for showing their breasts; they get put on the sexual predator watch list, and have all the rest of the 'fun' that occurs to people like that. Those are the laws I want to change.
Post by
Squishalot
I honestly don't give a crap; if someone wants to walk around buck naked, more power to them. What I dislike are the states where a woman is treated the same as someone who has raped another person, just for showing their breasts; they get put on the sexual predator watch list, and have all the rest of the 'fun' that occurs to people like that. Those are the laws I want to change.
Again - that's an issue with the relevant sexual predator legislation, not general public indecency laws.
That being said though, why do you think walking around topless is somehow safer than someone walking around
buck naked
? Or do you think they should also be safe from sexual predator legislation?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.