Allow Topless Women? (Mature Content)

[Teebs]

This is something that caught my eye today, and I am wondering about everyone's opinion.

Feminism some men may argue, has its downsides - particularly when it means they have to share the housework.

But few would protest against the latest victory for women's rights.

Ladies in Copenhagen will now be allowed to swim and walk around topless in public pools.
The decision is the result of a year-long campaign by a pressure group, the Topless Front, which says women should be treated the same as bare-chested men.

Campaign leader Astrid Vang, 20, who took her shirt off with others to protest at a leisure centre at Christmas, said: "We women would like to decide by ourselves when our breasts should be sexual and when not.

"In swimming pools they should not and that is why the breasts should not be covered - We will bathe topless just like men."

The Danish campaign was inspired by a Swedish group called Just Breasts, which was formed after two women were asked to cover up their breasts by a lifeguard at a public pool near Stockholm.

Swedish protesters carried out several full-frontal marches in their country but are still campaigning for bare-chested equality.

One of their leaders, 22-year-old Ragnhild Karlsson, said: "We want our breasts to be as normal and desexualised as men's, so that we too can pull off our shirts at football matches."

Activists expect a flurry of similar campaigns-across Europe, including in Britain.

Authorities in Vancouver, Canada - often considered to be a bastion of Victorian values - have allowed topless women in swimming pools and on beaches for several years.

The only protest against the move came from lifeguards who said they had problems knowing what to hold when rescuing swimmers in difficulties.

In Copenhagen yesterday, the city's Culture and Leisure Committee voted overwhelmingly to allow topless bathing.

Frank Hedegaard, of the Socialist People's Party, said: "I cannot understand what some people find so offensive about women's breasts.

I know some guys wouldn't mind looking at a topless woman, but in public? Just looking at where this is taking place (Europe), their customs are different than ours. But would you honestly want to watch women while swimming walking and swimming around in a public pool in the US? Would you be offended by such an act? Debate!

 

[Surri-Sama]

This is something that caught my eye today, and I am wondering about everyone's opinion.



I know some guys wouldn't mind looking at a topless woman, but in public? Just looking at where this is taking place (Europe), their customs are different than ours. But would you honestly want to watch women while swimming walking and swimming around in a public pool in the US? Would you be offended by such an act? Debate!

Personaly i think its a bit foolish, these "feminists" really are tryign to say men and woman are exactly the same...we have no physical or mental diffeances, we are perfectly equil

I think this is just a slow movement step, that woman are taking to try and gain more controle in what they do, and they really dont care what it is, as long as its a control =.=

Thier arguement is "we should be allowed to do the same" then tell me that when you see a man breast feeding...wouldnt that be redicules...btu why not, we are all exactly the same

and its not about being offended about it, tis about the fact that tis a sexual body part and itll only cause mroe problems with pervs and sexual deviants, but who cares right GIRL POWER!!!

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think this is just a slow movement step, that woman are taking to try and gain more controle in what they do, and they really dont care what it is, as long as its a control =.=

I don't see why wanting more control in their own lives and LESS from the government is a bad thing. It's not like they are trying to assert control over someone else.

Thier arguement is "we should be allowed to do the same" then tell me that when you see a man breast feeding...wouldnt that be redicules...btu why not, we are all exactly the same

The sexualization of breasts will always exist, to be sure, but part of the attraction is its taboo on exposure. If that is eliminated then it can only reduce the objectification of breasts and women. If people are raised not to consider exposed breasts as 'wrong' then the taboo disappears but for the annal of history where other baseless taboos reside. Incidentally, men can lactate. If you give your nipple enough stimulation over a long period of time, it can happen. It's kind of gross and mucusy from what I understand.

and its not about being offended about it, tis about the fact that tis a sexual body part and itll only cause mroe problems with pervs and sexual deviants, but who cares right GIRL POWER!!!

How will it cause more problems? Do you not think people don't stare at breasts anyway just because they are covered up? As I said earlier if anything it will reduce the sexualization of breasts. The notion that it will increase problems with sexual deviance is just conjecture. I'd like to see actual evidence that suggests what you say.

 

[cF=)]

Impressive, to say the least.

Wasn't covering breast something more practical than anything? Jogging requires having a sport bra, else a woman's breast jumps everywhere. Diving off a diving board and landing at a wrong angle must hurt if you have no swimsuit covering your top part, probably the reason why most one-piece swimsuit are made that way.

It's also important to note that even if feminists request such right, women might not agree with taking their top part off. I'd have to ask friends to know their opinion on the matter, because if I was the one gaining that right, I don't know if I'd feel comfortable showing my breast to everybody else. It's just a matter of privacy sometimes.

But if it's just for the purpose of bathing and encouraging your favourite team, I see nothing wrong with it. I'd be happy to get flashes if I was a professional athlete... what a motivation!

 

[Mic_128]

I'll be waiting for all the complaints that men are staring as soon as the thing's legalised.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I don't see why wanting more control in their own lives and LESS from the government is a bad thing. It's not like they are trying to assert control over someone else.



The sexualization of breasts will always exist, to be sure, but part of the attraction is its taboo on exposure. If that is eliminated then it can only reduce the objectification of breasts and women. If people are raised not to consider exposed breasts as 'wrong' then the taboo disappears but for the annal of history where other baseless taboos reside. Incidentally, men can lactate. If you give your nipple enough stimulation over a long period of time, it can happen. It's kind of gross and mucusy from what I understand.



How will it cause more problems? Do you not think people don't stare at breasts anyway just because they are covered up? As I said earlier if anything it will reduce the sexualization of breasts. The notion that it will increase problems with sexual deviance is just conjecture. I'd like to see actual evidence that suggests what you say.

to the first part your right, I didn’t really think about what I said.

As to the sexualization of breasts, again your right about it being a taboo, but due to our culture and such, we wont break this unless all woman around us did it, and trust me, that’s NOT going to happen, it’ll be a select few, who "want to be free" (as if shirts and bras are really that confining ((and im serious)) which will drive sexual crimes higher.

Due to the way humans think/act people will be more compelled to act upon sexual fantasies, more so if they are given a small taste (bet cha cant eat just one) this is a fact of life.

and one last point I didn’t make last time, aren’t woman allready insecure about there bodies, im not sure of the % but I bet its higher then 50% and doing something like this will not help that what so ever, but who cares again, THE WOMAN NEED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT!!!

P.S; about the man breastfeeding thing, i don’t think a mans "breast milk" (if you will) has the nutrients of a woman’s O_o that’s just weird xD

 

[starcock]

The sexual harrassment charges will rise, injuries to the breast will rise, divorce rates will rise, young imature teens will go insane. Also, did you know Topless women are already legal in alot of parts in the usa, including NY? In Ny women can go around topless in most areas I think, I forget where the limitation is set up but you can find that law anymore. Most people don't know about it or women don't even hoose to go topless anyway.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

As to the sexualization of breasts, again your right about it being a taboo, but due to our culture and such, we wont break this unless all woman around us did it, and trust me, that’s NOT going to happen, it’ll be a select few, who "want to be free" (as if shirts and bras are really that confining ((and im serious)) which will drive sexual crimes higher.

It doesn't require that ALL women do this to break it. Only that people don't flip out or react weirldly when they see a bare breast. Which there's no reason why they should anyway, they just do because they are "supposed" to. If children are raised not knowing they are "supposed to" react that way it won't be a problem. And I'm still waiting for evidence that it will increase sexual crimes.

Due to the way humans think/act people will be more compelled to act upon sexual fantasies, more so if they are given a small taste (bet cha cant eat just one) this is a fact of life.

No it's just conjecture. And anyways these crimes that you're talking about, the victims would be precisely the people who expose their breasts, not just EVERY woman on the street, so having a law there is really just 'to protect people from themselves', and I don't think anyone should have the government have to interfere in their lives like that.

and one last point I didn’t make last time, aren’t woman allready insecure about there bodies, im not sure of the % but I bet its higher then 50% and doing something like this will not help that what so ever, but who cares again, THE WOMAN NEED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT!!!

Why should we stop them from doing what they want? Whose rights are they violating? There's no reason to have a law against something that doesn't violate another's rights.

The sexual harrassment charges will rise, injuries to the breast will rise, divorce rates will rise, young imature teens will go insane. Also, did you know Topless women are already legal in alot of parts in the usa, including NY? In Ny women can go around topless in most areas I think, I forget where the limitation is set up but you can find that law anymore. Most people don't know about it or women don't even hoose to go topless anyway.

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture, conjecture. And if it is legal in NY, it's just evidence that it DOESN'T cause problems.

 

[snex]

I'll be waiting for all the complaints that men are staring as soon as the thing's legalised.

right... if they dont complain that im staring and drooling, then go for it. but lets not have any hypocrisy that they want to expose themselves but not be stared at. if they have the right to go topless because its their body, i have the right to direct my eyes wherever id like because they are my body.

 

[Zero Beat]

Actually, this little stunt wouldn't fit in today's society, not anyt1me soon.

Dead on, snex. 'Look at my skimpy clothes, but please don't stare.'

 

[Surri-Sama]

It doesn't require that ALL women do this to break it. Only that people don't flip out or react weirldly when they see a bare breast. Which there's no reason why they should anyway, they just do because they are "supposed" to. If children are raised not knowing they are "supposed to" react that way it won't be a problem. And I'm still waiting for evidence that it will increase sexual crimes.



No it's just conjecture. And anyways these crimes that you're talking about, the victims would be precisely the people who expose their breasts, not just EVERY woman on the street, so having a law there is really just 'to protect people from themselves', and I don't think anyone should have the government have to interfere in their lives like that.



Why should we stop them from doing what they want? Whose rights are they violating? There's no reason to have a law against something that doesn't violate another's rights.



Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture, conjecture. And if it is legal in NY, it's just evidence that it DOESN'T cause problems.

Lol by saying "its up to them if they want to put themselves in dangourus situations" Then how come mom told me not to run with scissors O_O

and btw, when was the last time you where in NY, because the Law system ...well shes perfect! jk NY law has some technical problems so i wouldnt say that last part, unless it was a joke, then touche o.o;;

P.S.: The place where it says "last stock" shouldnt be liek that, its filtering "what that little clock in the corner tells you"

 

[Rici]

Over here in the Netherlands we have some parts of the beach(often away from the 'civilized' parts) where you can go nude if you'd want. Never had any problems with this. Only if you don't like seeing some old geezer's stuff then you shouldn't be there. Only problem could be that you could be walking on to a nude beach without really noticing it.

Also, most women sunbath topless over here, also on the regular beaches.

 

[snex]

Over here in the Netherlands we have some parts of the beach(often away from the 'civilized' parts) where you can go nude if you'd want. Never had any problems with this. Only if you don't like seeing some old geezer's stuff then you shouldn't be there. Only problem could be that you could be walking on to a nude beach without really noticing it.

Also, most women sunbath topless over here, also on the regular beaches.

pics or didnt happen.

sorry, i had to say it.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Lol by saying "its up to them if they want to put themselves in dangourus situations" Then how come mom told me not to run with scissors O_O

Because it's your MOM not the GOVERNMENT. And it's ADVICE not a LAW. A law forbidding running with scissors would be insanely stupid.

and btw, when was the last time you where in NY, because the Law system ...well shes perfect! jk NY law has some technical problems so i wouldnt say that last part, unless it was a joke, then touche o.o;;

Somehow I doubt the NY law thing but my point was I don't think anyone has had any complaints about women going topless, so if that is the case, then clearly there's not problem.

Look, the point is that if a woman chooses to go topless, she does so at her OWN risk. All that stuff about 'sexual crimes' increasing only will happen to the women who reveal their breasts (assuming that it causes those things in the first place), so they know what they are getting into. We don't need the government telling people they aren't allowed to take risks in their lives that don't affect anyone but themselves.

 

[starcock]

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture, conjecture. And if it is legal in NY, it's just evidence that it DOESN'T cause problems.

Wrong, it is legal but almost no one, if none, does it, why? Because women are not stupid. Mind you, topless women will also cause car accidents and stalkers.

 

[Teebs]

So pretty much, Topless Women = DISASTER! and everything else named above.

 

[Batchfile]

Absolutely stupid. Breasts have the connotation of being sexual. And men's do not. That's why women don't publicly expose their breasts. Not in this generation anyways.

 

[Colenstien]

Must...... resist..... urge....... to celebrate........ topless women....... thank you god.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Wrong, it is legal but almost no one, if none, does it, why? Because women are not stupid. Mind you, topless women will also cause car accidents and stalkers.

Wrong about what? Are these arguments that it shouldn't be legal? I don't understand your point.

 

[snex]

Wrong, it is legal but almost no one, if none, does it, why? Because women are not stupid. Mind you, topless women will also cause car accidents and stalkers.

topless women dont cause car accidents and stalkers, people who CHOOSE to ignore traffic and stalk others cause those things. your argument is identical to the radical muslim idea that women who arent completely covered cause ****.

 

[Keitaro]

topless women dont cause car accidents and stalkers, people who CHOOSE to ignore traffic and stalk others cause those things. your argument is identical to the radical muslim idea that women who arent completely covered cause ****.

I think both are actually true since it is rare for women to be open chested walking down the street just like it's rare in Pakistan or wherever for women to not be wearing a bunch of garbs.

If all women did not wear garbs that's different but if a select few didn't wear them then it would be more likely for abnormal thoughts to be thought of them by others. Same as topless women. I'd hate to see some pretty asian girl topless walking down the street while I'm holding my girlfriend. That would just create awkward positions for the both of us.

 

[Zero Beat]

It depends on the type of community. There are Indian tribes whose women don't wear anything on top, and it's fine by them.

If you're able to post here, then you should have seen an episode or two in National Geographic or the History Channel. Discovery's not bad either.

 

[Keitaro]

True, it does depend of the type of community. Are you saying that the Muslim community is ready for women to go around topless just as these Indian tribes are?

Not even America should be catorgorized as ready for that yet. It goes against the norm of the community especially the Muslim one but the accusation of **** for less clothes just sounds crazy unless there are some believable examples.

 

[Zero Beat]

True, it does depend of the type of community. Are you saying that the Muslim community is ready for women to go around topless just as these Indian tribes are?

Not even America should be catorgorized as ready for that yet.

Although you have your nudist groups(I have a friend that supports nudism), the U.S. is a mix of races, where very few support going outside naked 'like it's all good.'

This, like religion, heavily depends on where you're born.

 

[Surri-Sama]

it depends on your community eh, well i thoguht we where talkign about amrica but i guess not??

And yes laws that protect you are stupid, i mean who wants to be safe, pfft

And by saying sexual crimes wont incres become of this is just trying to ignore the obvious, can i prove it..nope...but i guess thats why Amricans are in such a flawed system alltogether =.=

Prove it or begone!

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

And yes laws that protect you are stupid, i mean who wants to be safe, pfft

Why does there need to be a LAW against it? Are you saying people should not have the right to act in an "unsafe" manner that doesn't affect anyone else if they so choose? We're not talking about a person driving 120 MPH where he's a danger to other people. We're talking about an exposed breast, which is a danger to nobody.

And by saying sexual crimes wont incres become of this is just trying to ignore the obvious, can i prove it..nope...but i guess thats why Amricans are in such a flawed system alltogether =.=

Saying "it's just obvious" isn't an argument. You can't prove it because you've got no evidence to back it up. If anything it would only increase harrassment against the very people who want to go topless in the first place, in which case they are doing it at THEIR OWN risk. They aren't violating anyone else's rights. Thus having a law against it makes no sense and just gets in the way of personal freedoms. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

Thanks also for the potshot about America that has nothing to do with anything. Keep it to yourself next time.

 

[Ikural]

A law (Or lack thereof) which gives women the right to be topless would not increase sexual harassment or **** in any way. It would, however, appear this way to the majority. This would be because this law (Again, or lack thereof) would be a medai focus for a while, and if anyone practiced it, they would possibly become the victims of said sexual harassment or ****. The numbers would stay approximately the same, but the victims would not just be anyone walking down the street.

No law, or practise by women is going to increase the number of people who commit ****. This is just an illogical thought.

As for my personal oppinion on it, I think it's fine, I see no problem with it. The only problem, and the only issue that our society would face would be that it's unusual. In the Indian (I apologize for this term) or whatever type of tribes that did not subject thier women to cover up thier tops, there was no **** (Or at least, no moreso than what we have). This would be because that is thier society; they were used to women who were topless.

So I say: Power to the women fighting for this. It's thier choice. Choosing to fight for this (And in the event that they win) will subject them to different reactions or force oppinions about them, but this will change. This will change only after society would realize that the world has changed. Plain and simple.

I apologize for the lack of supporting facts or evidence within my post, but this is an unusual topic to find such evidence on.

 

[Surri-Sama]

A law (Or lack thereof) which gives women the right to be topless would not increase sexual harassment or **** in any way. It would, however, appear this way to the majority. This would be because this law (Again, or lack thereof) would be a medai focus for a while, and if anyone practiced it, they would possibly become the victims of said sexual harassment or ****. The numbers would stay approximately the same, but the victims would not just be anyone walking down the street.

No law, or practise by women is going to increase the number of people who commit ****. This is just an illogical thought.

As for my personal oppinion on it, I think it's fine, I see no problem with it. The only problem, and the only issue that our society would face would be that it's unusual. In the Indian (I apologize for this term) or whatever type of tribes that did not subject thier women to cover up thier tops, there was no **** (Or at least, no moreso than what we have). This would be because that is thier society; they were used to women who were topless.

So I say: Power to the women fighting for this. It's thier choice. Choosing to fight for this (And in the event that they win) will subject them to different reactions or force oppinions about them, but this will change. This will change only after society would realize that the world has changed. Plain and simple.

I apologize for the lack of supporting facts or evidence within my post, but this is an unusual topic to find such evidence on.

This arguement "proves" just as much as mine, and by the standerds of debate here, you dont even have a case, we both cant prove yet because it hasnt happened and obviously human tendancys are not enough, we actually have to witness a problem before we can do anything about it i guess =.=

"No law, or practise by women is going to increase the number of people who commit ****. This is just an illogical thought." and this is just Negligence, saying no actions by law or woman people can incress **** do you really think this O_o

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

Topless women in public would create a scene. I'm sure the women going topless would be happy until they find out every guy withing a two mile raidus is trying to catch a glimpse.

 

[Surri-Sama]

Topless women in public would create a scene. I'm sure the women going topless would be happy until they find out every guy withing a two mile raidus is trying to catch a glimpse.

This is just one mroe bovious (but unprovable) reason why sexual harrasment would nto only go up, but the rules would have to be redefined, as "dont stare at my chest", just wont cut it any more

 

[ComradeSAL]

The idea that we need to protect people from themselves is ridiculous. Car accidents are the #1 cause of death for people aged 15-24 years (link). Should it be illegal for them to enter a car? What about smoking/tobacco? Buying firearms? Unprotected sex?

You are far more likely to cause harm to yourself by doing any of the above things than going topless at your local suburban pool, and yet the above things are legal and going topless is not. Clearly there needs to be another reason to maintain this law besides the fact that it might cause harm to the ones that choose to participate.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

I don't understand how it would increase ****. You see a topless woman in public, so you have to drag her into an ally and have your way with her? I don't understand how the two would be correlated.

 

[Caturdayz]

I don't understand how it would increase ****. You see a topless woman in public, so you have to drag her into an ally and have your way with her? I don't understand how the two would be correlated.

It only makes sense to the foolish and ignorant. Honestly I don't want to **** every woman I see... Maybe its just me?

Its 100 percent hypocrisy that men can walk "exposed" and woman can't.

Unfortunately, since 95 % are *******es and are not quite ready for this.

 

[Surri-Sama]

It only makes sense to the foolish and ignorant. Honestly I don't want to **** every woman I see... Maybe its just me?

Its 100 percent hypocrisy that men can walk "exposed" and woman can't.

Unfortunately, since 95 % are *******es and are not quite ready for this.

your attempts to make an argument by calling me stupid doesn't really work, only the incredibly stupid don't know ho to read posts and try to bash people for no reason >_>

 

[darkshy]

I don't think it's the fact that women want their breasts to be sexual or not. I think it's the fact that men see breasts as sexual. Can you imagine say a 13 or 14 year old staring at a women breasts? Well now she couldn't get offended because it would be totally legit to do so. Female breast are seen as sexual in TV and movies that's why they're rated R or TV-MA so I think there reasons are going to do more harm then good.

 

[ComradeSAL]

It's socially unacceptable to stare at a stranger's exposed face. Why would it be socially acceptable to stare at their exposed breasts?

 

[Caturdayz]

It's socially unacceptable to stare at a stranger's exposed face. Why would it be socially acceptable to stare at their exposed breasts?

I agree.

Its unacceptable to stare at people's face and guess what? They don't get covered.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I agree.

Its unacceptable to stare at people's face and guess what? They don't get covered.

yup, people also still stare, and they also still stalk, and guess what they commit crimes, and wow this is only opening another window to do crimes, this is North Amrica, the majority dont follow what YOU think should be done...if woman are going bare chest, people will stare, and others will act

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Here is your supposed Collapse of Civilization:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm

Take a very, very, VERY close look at the Crime rates for selected offenses table, and observe the percentage and rate of sexual crimes.

Sirch, you're spouting something similiar to 'reefer madness' propoganda. You assume that looking at a magical object, in this case a breast, will cause a fundamental change in people's thought process and cause them to go insane and ****, stalk, etc.

The reality is people who ****, stalk, kill, etc. simply do not feel remorse for their actions, and this quality is present before they even have a victim. My point is people in this category will ****, kill, and stalk reguardless if they see a breast in public or not. Rapist do not need to see someone nude before they get the impulse to ****.

If breast exposure actually does traumatize a person enough to where they actually do have the mentality of someone who is remorselss, you'd have to wonder how much sanity they had left anyway.

 

[Surri-Sama]

If breast exposure actually does traumatize a person enough to where they actually do have the mentality of someone who is remorselss, you'd have to wonder how much sanity they had left anyway.

first off dont blow what i said out of realisticness, i didnt say itd be the end of the world, ffs stop tryign to alter what i say to make your points easyer =.=

and secondly "you'd have to wonder how much sanity they had left anyway" you have to remember how many people are at this state in Amrica