StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If a guy can walk around topless, then why cant women?

There is no difference, just that the breasts on women are mostly larger.

I think one of the reasons for allowing women to go around topless was because it was sexist not to, it was one of the good things of the feminist's political power.

But there should definitely be a weight limit for being allowed to walk around topless. There's public decency and there's OH MY GOD ITS HIDEOUS!!!!

Ah, thank you Innerbrat. It was a while ago when I read up on it. Didn't know it affected the mother rather than the child. Either way, breastfeeding is no longer an option afterwards. And Formula feeding is too expensive anyways.

And if a fat man with huge breasts can walk around with his jubblies hanging out, a woman should be able to

I saw it once, ugh, burried my face in my GF'schest until the thing passed us.

The most hideous thing i saw was at Ozzfest last year. Luckily she wasn't topless, but there should be a size limit on wannabe Goths, too.

I saw it once, ugh, burried my face in my GF'schest until the thing passed us.

Oh that's too good. That's rich
A friend of mine has two cures for everything. Pot, and putting your head between a pair of big breasts.

Malachius wrote:

I saw it once, ugh, burried my face in my GF's chest until the thing passed us.

Oh that's too good. That's rich
A friend of mine has two cures for everything. Pot, and putting your head between a pair of big breasts.

I don't do pot, but the chest part is the best cure.

innerbrat wrote:But there should definitely be a weight limit for being allowed to walk around topless. There's public decency and there's OH MY GOD ITS HIDEOUS!!!!

When the new topless laws were first passed for women a few years back, the first report I saw on the news about it was that a fat ugly hag was mowing her lawn topless. Thank god they didn't show her topless on the news but what I saw was bad enough.

aerius wrote:

innerbrat wrote:But there should definitely be a weight limit for being allowed to walk around topless. There's public decency and there's OH MY GOD ITS HIDEOUS!!!!

When the new topless laws were first passed for women a few years back, the first report I saw on the news about it was that a fat ugly hag was mowing her lawn topless. Thank god they didn't show her topless on the news but what I saw was bad enough.

Are you sure they didn't accidently photograph a fat dude with man boobs? There are a lot of guys that shouldn't be going topless either.

There are some people who definately don't need to be seen in the nude. It's not the topless supermodel that worries me, it's the 350lb old woman who does.

I think that the weight limit for women going topless should be about 140

I don't have a problem with minors looking at porn, I have a problem with minors paying for porn and they don't even got a job.

I went to England and France this summer and spent a week at a Normandy beach resort- mostly French people, a few British, no other Americans. France appears to be rather relaxed about this kind of thing, so there was topless sunbathing, walking around, etc. etc.

Most of it was good. But, have you ever seen a hidiously fat 90 yr old women topless?

Pain!

Yeah, the rest of the western world is much less up tight about porn and shit than the US is. Stupid religious arseholes.

I've realized for every woman that you would want going around topless, there are about 10 that should be wearing a shirt. And if you put a weight limit in America, all the fat, ugly women will sue. That's why we don't have women walking around with no shirt on.

ArmorPierce wrote:Yeah, the rest of the western world is much less up tight about porn and shit than the US is. Stupid religious arseholes.

Don't feel alone in the past few years Oz has got more conservative when it comes to sex, porn and nudity (although if you want to see nudity there is a nude beach about 20 min drive from where I am now, but it is aparently mostly populate by old ugly people). Our gov has tightened censorship laws ridiculously due mostly to some stuck up bitch members of parliament, worst bit is the worst is from SA (my state) and it used to be a progressive state. *sigh* god damn liberals.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

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.

What's wrong with nudity? Nudity is not the same as sexually explicit. There are museums all throughout the world filled with nude images, should children be 'protected' from great works of art?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

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.

Again, I reiterate that this is exactly the same argument used by the Islamic clerics: sexual temptation and "decency". What we think of as "oppressive", they think of as "decent". What we think of as "decent", they think of as "whorish". Go to France, and the standards are different.

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.

Opinion. Nothing more. Certainly no justification to throw a woman in jail because she's not conducting herself according to your personal standards. No law should ever be justified only by opinion.

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.

And unwilling to recognize the parallels between your thinking and that of Islamic clerics on this matter.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

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.

No, it's called "allowing special interest groups to tyrannize the entire population." Laws against public female toplessness mean that a female can be fined or even jailed for doing something that is perfectly legal for a man. This is not protecting people from tyranny; it is tyranny itself.

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.

And if some people genuinely believe that blacks and whites should not marry, then society should not force them to be put into a position where their children view such things? If some people genuinely believe that short skirts are indecent and will inflict psychological harm on their children, then society should not force them to be put into a position where their children view such things?

All of society must be regulated by the asinine beliefs of its most prudish elements?

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.

Protections we have. But there is a difference between "protection" and "allowing people to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats". "Protection" means that we can't force them to change their conduct; it does not mean they are allowed to force us to change our conduct.

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.

Actually, it is the tyranny of the majority that keeps these asinine laws in place. "Community standards" is simply another way of saying that a community has the right to oppress dissenters.

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 prudes have their private property. They can stay there if they don't want their children to see things which offend them. As I've said elsewhere, replace "topless" with "short skirts and tight clothes", and you're an Islamic cleric. Public laws can only be based on that which is objective, and private beliefs are not objective bases for laws.

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.

To defend them from that which is objectively known to be harmful to them. You cannot force everyone in society to do something because you BELIEVE it is harmful to you, if you cannot justify this belief. That is why Muslims cannot force women to stop wearing T-shirts and short skirts in this country.

Wicked Pilot wrote:There are some people who definately don't need to be seen in the nude. It's not the topless supermodel that worries me, it's the 350lb old woman who does.

True. But by that token, I don't want to have to see the 400 lb woman at all, regardless of what she's wearing. Maybe we can enact laws to keep such people out of public view

ArmorPierce wrote:I think that the weight limit for women going topless should be about 140

*Hadoken*

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I've realized for every woman that you would want going around topless, there are about 10 that should be wearing a shirt.

Actually, enough exposure to casual nudity, especially if there's a lot of fat women doing it, would remove the sexuality of it and make it ho-hum.

Darth Wong wrote:

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I've realized for every woman that you would want going around topless, there are about 10 that should be wearing a shirt.

Actually, enough exposure to casual nudity, especially if there's a lot of fat women doing it, would remove the sexuality of it and make it ho-hum.

THats why as you get older, you think less of naked women, and more of slightly clothed women, as you've become inure to nudity.

Darth Wong wrote:

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I've realized for every woman that you would want going around topless, there are about 10 that should be wearing a shirt.

Actually, enough exposure to casual nudity, especially if there's a lot of fat women doing it, would remove the sexuality of it and make it ho-hum.

It would also cause widespread eye damage particularly among males. You're right that it would remove the sexuality aspect. If I saw fat naked women every day on the streets I'd likely end up impotent after a short while, either that or I'll go blind.

aerius wrote:It would also cause widespread eye damage particularly among males. You're right that it would remove the sexuality aspect. If I saw fat naked women every day on the streets I'd likely end up impotent after a short while, either that or I'll go blind.

Either way would allow jmac freedom, the freedom to come over to my place.

aerius wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I've realized for every woman that you would want going around topless, there are about 10 that should be wearing a shirt.

Actually, enough exposure to casual nudity, especially if there's a lot of fat women doing it, would remove the sexuality of it and make it ho-hum.

It would also cause widespread eye damage particularly among males. You're right that it would remove the sexuality aspect. If I saw fat naked women every day on the streets I'd likely end up impotent after a short while, either that or I'll go blind.

or vomit violently!