StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mr. Wong from a PM wrote:Not a problem. Above-the-waist nudity is not considered pornography in Ontario where I live. In fact, women are allowed to walk around topless in public here.

Oh I hate you and you're lucky Canadian kind! Lol.

Some colleges allow people to walk around totally nude. I once saw a guy playing a tuba or something completely naked, on a hill overlooking a busy street. There's an example.

Yeah, that makes me a bit jealous.

To be honest I think you should wear appropriately decent clothing in public. Private property is different - If it's your's, do whatever you want there, and if it's someone else's, whatever the owner lets you - But in public there should be standards of decency common to society and especially considering there may be young children about.

I think the differentiation between public and private, however, should be quite important. I don't think the government should be able to stop you from doing anything in private unless you're physically harming someone else.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:To be honest I think you should wear appropriately decent clothing in public. Private property is different - If it's your's, do whatever you want there, and if it's someone else's, whatever the owner lets you - But in public there should be standards of decency common to society and especially considering there may be young children about.

I think the differentiation between public and private, however, should be quite important. I don't think the government should be able to stop you from doing anything in private unless you're physically harming someone else.

Many people on this board believe that exposing children to pornography does not do them any harm. Do you have any comments on this?

God damnit Wong! How much rent for me to move in up there?

Shinova wrote:

Many people on this board believe that exposing children to pornography does not do them any harm. Do you have any comments on this?

And there are a lot of people who would violently disagree with that. Because of that, displays of nudity to children should be a parenting choice, and should be controlled in areas where parents would have no control themselves over what their children can see. Nudity in a movie is fine; parents can keep their kids from going to one if they have a brain. Nudity on private property, the same. But walking down the street, or in a park open to the public? No.

I'm moving to canada or england at my first real chance.
Actually toplessness is not illegal in a lot of places in the US, it isn't illegal in central OH, though it is highly frowned upon by prudish idiots. Mostly it allows women to breastfeed in public.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:And there are a lot of people who would violently disagree with that. Because of that, displays of nudity to children should be a parenting choice, and should be controlled in areas where parents would have no control themselves over what their children can see.

In other words, prudes have the right to shove their sexually repressive bullshit down everyone else's throats. Gotcha.

Nudity in a movie is fine; parents can keep their kids from going to one if they have a brain. Nudity on private property, the same. But walking down the street, or in a park open to the public? No.

Bullshit. Provide one reason why the sight of topless women harms children. The fact that some people are assholes about it does not justify the law.

Kids will see nudity when they bathe or look in a damn mirror, there's nothing wrong with being naked.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:But walking down the street, or in a park open to the public? No.

Breastfeeding would be kind of hard too. I mean the wool alone would probably itch, and the baby might not like it either.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:To be honest I think you should wear appropriately decent clothing in public. Private property is different - If it's your's, do whatever you want there, and if it's someone else's, whatever the owner lets you - But in public there should be standards of decency common to society and especially considering there may be young children about.

It's quite fascinating that you say this, considering your contempt for Islamic law. Many an Islamic cleric has said the same thing with respect to women wearing short-sleeve shirts, tight dresses, or make-up, and with the same justifications.

Darth Wong wrote: It's quite fascinating that you say this, considering your contempt for Islamic law. Many an Islamic cleric has said the same thing with respect to women wearing short-sleeve shirts, tight dresses, or make-up, and with the same justifications.

Islamic dress for women is the dress of oppression; that is to say, it enforces inferiority by being demeaning and constraining. There's a considerable difference between that and having some simple decency in public. Human beings are inherently sexual creatures and for society to function we do have to contain that to a degree.

The display of certain aspects of sexuality in public, I think, is acceptable, but we must exercise reason to determine at which point it is an excessive display; and I think the exposure of the sexual organs of the live human body, is excessive. One can debate female breasts, though personally I wouldn't go around topless. However, I confess to being really a rather conservative person all things said.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:But walking down the street, or in a park open to the public? No.

Breastfeeding would be kind of hard too. I mean the wool alone would probably itch, and the baby might not like it either.

There are actually a fair number of women who don't breastfeed in public, thinking it inappropriate; though there is considered to be some leeway there in general by the average person and government (local, where most such regulations exist) alike.

American cities tend to let breastfeeders off. Quite frankly it's the problem of whoever is watching not the mother's and definately not the baby's(it's getting a meal)

Darth Wong wrote: In other words, prudes have the right to shove their sexually repressive bullshit down everyone else's throats. Gotcha.

Exactly. It's called defending the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If some people genuinely believe their children will have serious psychological damage for life from viewing genitals or pornographic material at a young age, then society should not force them to be put into a position where their children view such things. That is the essence of the constitutional republic, as opposed to a direct-rule democracy, that we have certain protections for people who believe certain things, no matter how stupid, ridiculous, or wrong-headed we think they are, and I suspect the situation is basically the same in Canada.

Bullshit. Provide one reason why the sight of topless women harms children. The fact that some people are assholes about it does not justify the law.

I see no reason to defend the scientific reasoning behind the position; that's not why I have my own. Just a private distaste, really.. For me, rather, it is the fact that the beliefs of people must be respected in our form of government, that the elegance of our constitution and our republic (here in the USA at least), is that the minority - and, bluntly, I suspect it is the majority in this case, if a rather narrow one, though it will probably change in the coming decades, our social mores have been constantly evolving - Must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

And as for those people who think it's fine for their children to see such things? They have their private property; they can do as they wish there. The job of the government is not to cater to the whim of the majority, but rather to balance the tyrannical direction of the majority with the need of defending the minority from the majority's impulses.

And I just wanted to add that for me the legal issues on this aren't a big deal - I could live in the Netherlands without a care for instance - But I think communities ought to be able to set their own standards on this matter. My own belief on those standards is purely a personal one.

For all the time they've allowed female toplessness in public I think I've actually seen it once.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: There are actually a fair number of women who don't breastfeed in public, thinking it inappropriate; though there is considered to be some leeway there in general by the average person and government (local, where most such regulations exist) alike.

Moronic stance for such mothers since breastfeeding is good for the baby, formula doesn't counteract that either.

You know, if early exposure to breasts is bad for our psychological development, all of us who were breastfed are doomed anyway.

Eru bless this great country of Canada. Personally I see nothing wrong with it. It's the natural state of the body, so who cares? Certain parents are offended at the idea of children seeing the body in its natural state? They think people should be ashamed of the human body? I see nothing indecent with a man or woman going around topless. Not allowing sex in public is something I agree with for the decency laws, but going topless is not a big deal.

And as far as the breastfeeding goes, infants can't wait for their feeding, so if a mother is in public and has to feed the child, by all means go ahead. It is better for the child than formula if I'm not mistaken. It gives the child certain natural immunities I believe. I also remember reading that if a child is on formula for a certain period of time the child cannot go back to breastfeeding. Can anyone confirm this?

(I'm not trying to put down formula as an option BTW)

I'm simply going to state that I don't believe the government should legislate morality. For example, here in Florida, oral sex (i don't know if this is performing or recieving) is punishable by a 20 year jail sentence. In Washington DC it is illegal to have sex with a virgin, and in Connecticutt sex in a private area between consenting adults is illegal. My source is "The U.S. book of lists", but I don't know how reliable it is.

The government should have no right to say what a person can do to his or her own body, or what sexual acts people do in privacy (I don't care what people do as long as it's consensual).

Malachius wrote:I also remember reading that if a child is on formula for a certain period of time the child cannot go back to breastfeeding. Can anyone confirm this?

It's not the child, it's the mother. If she isn't being milked, she stops producing milk, so after a period of time the child has to be bottle fed.
This is what Nestle was captilising on, BTW.