Coming Soon to a Strip-ping Mall Near You - Topless Women

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Serious?  “Are you basing your perception on the fact that you are a male?”  “Have you taken a poll...?” Etc. Etc.. more trolling...etc?

Why are you wasting our time here?

Once again Ahab, have a nice weekend.  We are done here. 

I will address this though:

“What you don't seem to realize is that laws are established by people with particular perceptions who want to somehow make their perceptions binding on other people, or else”

That’s how it works.  One group’s perception become binding on other groups who disagree.  Want something else?  Anarchy is the only  solution to that problem that I know of.

I'm basing my perception that there are other perceptions on the fact that many people have told me or I have heard or read that there are many perceptions out there.

People don't have to make their own perceptions binding on other people, though.  And they don't have to have double standards, saying one thing is okay for men but not okay for women. 

Modest clothing for all, I say!  And yes I realize there would still be people who would go around topless even if it was deemed against the law for either men or women to go around topless.  But at least the law would be equally binding for all sexes.

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

. Modest clothing for all, I say!.

Good luck buddy!

[california boy]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hmm. Muslims seem to have found a way to visibly de-sexualize women. I have never heard anyone say this is sexy:

Just curious, have you, or anyone else ever talked to a Muslim man to see if they are sexually turned on by women in burkas?  Sometimes, just the eyes is all it takes.  

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just curious, have you, or anyone else ever talked to a Muslim man to see if they are sexually turned on by women in burkas?  Sometimes, just the eyes is all it takes.  

[provoman]

Ourculture and people simply wont allow for it - and we have power.  If those in power do nothing, we will take them from power and put somebody in who will fight it all the way to the top. 

 

Does such power respect the rights of the minority; it is very much doubtful it does. 

 

7 hours ago, pogi said:

 I would argue that covering your breasts in public is not treating your body as shameful.  In fact, it is respecting it as sacred and certain parts are not for public display.  Just like sex is sacred and not shameful, and keeping it private is to respect it and respect others. 

You have down a good job of articulating your opinions; I have enjoyed reading your comments.

I agree bodies are sacred. And a breast is a fleshy/fatty/muscular part of a body which has a areola and a nipple, men and women have both;  wouldn't bodily sacredness demand that all breasts be covered in public.

Is there a LDS religious basis to label one body made in the image of God is sacred and must be covered, while another body made in the image of God lacks sacredness to be covered. Just as sex is sacred - thus religion (and presumably LDS); however, LDS belief does not regard that sex need not be private for the male..

Edited November 23, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Once they find out the context, that it was a MIL in her 20’s who identified as a feminist who intentionally exposed her breasts to her 9,10, and 13 year old children-in-law to teach them that is ok for a woman to expose her breasts around the house and in public

But the intentionality can be argued given her story and the one the media appears to be accepting as valid is that the kids walked in on her topless and she took that moment which had unintentionally exposed them whether or not she quickly covered up to try and teach them not to be embarrassed or feel shamed by it. 

Since there are no reports this is something she does on a regular basis and appears to be a one time thing, I don’t see much luck in pushing the idea she is an activist willing to sacrifice her kids to the cause.

There is a difference between being a feminist and an activist. I know some people equate them in their mind and in Utah with its culture, the word may have negative connotations, but I view myself as a feminist and have at opportune times also taught my kids things that I have never mentioned again or maybe there are years between the subject coming up. 

The drunk context appears not to be interesting to any nonlocal sources I have seen.  Instead the whole ‘woman may get put on sex registry because she was topless in her home’ is in many headlines of webpages and looks to be the hook media is using to get people to look.

PS:  the current media reminds me of what happened with Denson.  Even the prosecution seems to not be speaking about its previous claims that dramatically alter the context. Besides two iirc news outlets reporting some details released in her dossier initially, nothing much was reported later on that questioned her credibility.  Since it is obvious that most of the news sources are just repeating what two or three locals outlets have reported, the prosecution’s original claims may end up forgotten....except in places like this.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the intentionality can be argued given her story and the one the media appears to be accepting as valid is that the kids walked in on her topless and she took that moment which had unintentionally exposed them whether or not she quickly covered up to try and teach them not to be embarrassed or feel shamed by it. 

Since there are no reports this is something she does on a regular basis and appears to be a one time thing, I don’t see much luck in pushing the idea she is an activist willing to sacrifice her kids to the cause.

There is a difference between being a feminist and an activist. I know some people equate them in their mind and in Utah with its culture, the word may have negative connotations, but I view myself as a feminist and have at opportune times also taught my kids things that I have never mentioned again or maybe there are years between the subject coming up. 

If Utah had to choose between mercy for this woman or making it legal for all teenage girls and women to expose their breasts in public in Utah.  They will sacrifice the one for the good of the many (John 11:50; 1 Nephi 4:13).  I think that is the mindset here, mostly.

Edited November 23, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

If Utah had to choose between mercy for this woman or making it legal for all teenage girls and women to expose their breasts in public in Utah.  They will sacrifice the one for the good of the many (John 11:50; 1 Nephi 4:13).  I think that is the mindset here, mostly.

I wonder if they could alter the law instead, separate out public vs private. 

Drop the case or make some sort of deal to make it go away, so that no ruling gets made. 

With the ACLU involved, I doubt that will happen, but the family might be getting stressed from the attention given how even mild issues seem to bring out death threats these days. 

[pogi]

13 hours ago, provoman said:

Does such power respect the rights of the minority; it is very much doubtful it does.

Either the voice of the majority or the voice of the minority can become law, but not both when they are of opposing views - hence the voting system.  The only way absolute liberty can be afforded to all is in an anarchy.

13 hours ago, provoman said:

You have down a good job of articulating your opinions; I have enjoyed reading your comments.

I agree bodies are sacred. And a breast is a fleshy/fatty/muscular part of a body which has a areola and a nipple, men and women have both;  wouldn't bodily sacredness demand that all breasts be covered in public.

Is there a LDS religious basis to label one body made in the image of God is sacred and must be covered, while another body made in the image of God lacks sacredness to be covered. Just as sex is sacred - thus religion (and presumably LDS); however, LDS belief does not regard that sex need not be private for the male..

Thank you!

If you consider why certain body parts might be considered sacred in our religion, it is because of their  function of creating, birthing, and nurturing life and for their symbology.  Different parts and functions are tied to religious symbols of oneness with the Lord, baptism, rebirth, covenant making, and being nurtured in the spirit.

I personally view the female breast as one of the most sacred for both reasons.  The male breast simply doesn’t have the same function, nor the same symbology.  In the scriptures, the image of a nursing mother and her suckling child are symbolic of God and his covenant people who are held in the “bosom” of their nurturing and loving God.  There is perhaps no human bodily function or symbol that is more tender, and it is entirely and uniquely feminine.

It is no wonder that Satan has hijacked it, perverted it, exploited it, and adulterated it into one of the most powerful symbols of lust and filth.

Interestingly, we feel it is culturally appropriate to display the natural and sacred act of nursing, but also feel it necessary to cover up for all other purposes to protect it from further exploitation by the adversary, and honestly for the woman’s own safety.  I would not trust my daughter out in public topless for a second!  Satan has taken it too far for it to be safe.

So, yes, I definitely consider the female breast to be far more sacred than the male breast because of its function and religious symbol.

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

We are looking at this from different perspectives.  From the larger national perspective, the prevailing culture won.  From the micro culture of the south, the law won.  But either way you look at it, culture DID dictate law in that scenario.  The larger culture dictated law for the smaller culture.  Sometimes the smaller culture does win, but even then, those laws and changes are culturally based.  

We would never have seen legal changes with gay marriage before cultural shifts in thinking.  These laws simply would not have passed in the 40's and 50's.  The people would not have allowed for it.  Today, enough people care to make it to stick.  It is always cultural shifts in thinking that trigger legal changes.  If culture did not dictate law, what would?  A dictator?  

 

I think you're misunderstanding me.  I've already said that culture does play a part, but it is not a given that culture will always be the deciding factor in what laws we have.  

If I'm understanding you correctly (and maybe I'm not) you ascribe to the German Historical School of Law, which says that "law begins as culture, eventually becoming the law of the nation."  That's not the only way to approach law and culture though.  There are actually a handful of different ways to understand the relationship between culture and law.  The one that most scholars would consider to be the opposite of the German Historical School of Law is the Constitutive approach, which is explained this way by Menachem Mautner:

"The historical school assumes a transition from the law of a people, embedded in social practices and culture, to the law of the state, while the constitutive approach assumes a transition from the law of the state to culture and daily social interactions."

I've not studied them all (and I've studied none of them very much so my understanding of each one is superficial at best), but as you can see for that small example, the options are not either 'culture leads to laws' or 'dictator creates laws' as you are arguing.

There is a large school of thought that argues that law actually creates culture, and that is what I believe we have seen a little bit of when it comes to the gay marriage issue.  Though culture definitely changed which allowed the idea of it, I think that it was the fact that the law made it legal first, that then lead to people accepting it culturally. 

While you ascribe to the German Historical School of Law, I'm more of a Constitutive Approach girl, believing that law participates in creating the culture around us.

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

There is no equivalence in perception between a male "nipple" and female "nipple" (which is what is illegal to expose).  When was the last time you heard anyone freak out over a wardrobe malfunction exposing the nipple of a man?  Cultural perceptions are not equivalent.  Different galaxies!  

It could be argued though that the difference in perception is contrived--not deliberately but in a law of unintended consequences kind of way,--by our culture's historical reliance on, and the dominance of, the male perspective to create laws and shape culture.  

As in, the differences between the male and female nipple only exists because historically men saw them differently.  And men created laws which focused on the perception of that difference, setting out to control access to that which they saw as sexually pleasing while ignoring women's perceptions of what was sexually pleasing to them.   Making the female breast forbidden fruit increased it's ability to be sexually stimulating when it was in view, while the open access to the male chest and nipple likewise decreased it's ability to be sexually stimulating.

And all that means that someone could argue that the only reason that the female breast is perceived differently than the male breast is because men have created the difference.  And women are penalized for it.  

[provoman]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Either the voice of the majority or the voice of the minority can become law, but not both when they are of opposing views - hence the voting system.  The only way absolute liberty can be afforded to all is in an anarchy.

Thank you!

If you consider why certain body parts might be considered sacred in our religion, it is because of their  function of creating, birthing, and nurturing life and for their symbology.  Different parts and functions are tied to religious symbols of oneness with the Lord, baptism, rebirth, covenant making, and being nurtured in the spirit.

I personally view the female breast as one of the most sacred for both reasons.  The male breast simply doesn’t have the same function, nor the same symbology.  In the scriptures, the image of a nursing mother and her suckling child are symbolic of God and his covenant people who are held in the “bosom” of their nurturing and loving God.  There is perhaps no human bodily function or symbol that is more tender, and it is entirely and uniquely feminine.

It is no wonder that Satan has hijacked it, perverted it, exploited it, and adulterated it into one of the most powerful symbols of lust and filth.

Interestingly, we feel it is culturally appropriate to display the natural and sacred act of nursing, but also feel it necessary to cover up for all other purposes to protect it from further exploitation by the adversary, and honestly for the woman’s own safety.  I would not trust my daughter out in public topless for a second!  Satan has taken it too far for it to be safe.

So, yes, I definitely consider the female breast to be far more sacred than the male breast because of its function and religious symbol.

 

I am not familiar with nursing child metaphors from the scripture. I am more familiar with the bosom of Abraham and as a Hen gathers her chicks.

As for nursing in public, it is my understanding that laws only recently changed - due to public outcry - to permit nursing in public. 

As for the sacredness of the body from a religious stand point. Bodies are a Temple, this we learn in the scriptures. Male and Female bodies are then be equally sacred. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It could be argued though that the difference in perception is contrived--not deliberately but in a law of unintended consequences kind of way,--by our culture's historical reliance on, and the dominance of, the male perspective to create laws and shape culture.  

As in, the differences between the male and female nipple only exists because historically men saw them differently.  And men created laws which focused on the perception of that difference, setting out to control access to that which they saw as sexually pleasing while ignoring women's perceptions of what was sexually pleasing to them.   Making the female breast forbidden fruit increased it's ability to be sexually stimulating when it was in view, while the open access to the male chest and nipple likewise decreased it's ability to be sexually stimulating.

And all that means that someone could argue that the only reason that the female breast is perceived differently than the male breast is because men have created the difference.  And women are penalized for it.  

It could be argued lots of different ways.  I have heard arguments that the differences in perception between the male and female breasts are biological/evolutionarily based by sexual selection.  Just like the male peacock flaunts it’s feathers to attract a mate.  As the article below stated, “hey look at these, come mate with me.”

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/scientists-still-stumped-by-the-evolution-of-human-breasts

It has also been noted that female nipple stimulation triggers the same sexual areas of the brain as clitoral/vaginal stimulation in most women.  This triggers oxytocin(bonding hormone) which men have historically used to their advantage to make themselves more desirable to a female.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livescience.com/amp/23500-why-men-love-breasts.html

More theories:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210352/

No one really know why, it is all speculation.  What we can’t ignore is our culture and what the female breast means to us today.  It would be wrong to dismiss and offend cultural sensibilities of modesty/morality, regardless of what the law says or does. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

As for the sacredness of the body from a religious stand point. Bodies are a Temple, this we learn in the scriptures. Male and Female bodies are then be equally sacred. 

And if using religion to determine what should and shouldn’t be viewed, the Temple garment covers the same areas for all.  So appealing to religion to justify a different standard there may backfire imo (for Saints anyway).

Edited November 24, 2019 by Calm

[strappinglad]

Having now seen the photo of the lady in question... the title of a Shakespearian play come to mind , and no , it isn't King Lear .

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Having now seen the photo of the lady in question... the title of a Shakespearian play come to mind , and no , it isn't King Lear .

Much Ado about Nothing?

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Having now seen the photo of the lady in question... the title of a Shakespearian play come to mind , and no , it isn't King Lear .

Naughty 🙈

[pogi]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

As for the sacredness of the body from a religious stand point. Bodies are a Temple, this we learn in the scriptures. Male and Female bodies are then be equally sacred. 

Do you not see nursing as sacred?

Breastfeeding imprints a sacred connection and bond on the heart of the mother and child which is unparalleled in fatherhood (thanks to oxytocin).  It is a vital function which has been critical to the survival of our species.  For the same reason that our genitals and sex are sacred for the creation of life, why would nursing not be considered sacred for the unique and critical role of sustaining life?

I have found articles and blogs on the spirituality of breastfeeding:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/talkbirth.me/2012/06/25/breastfeeding-as-a-spiritual-practice/amp/

Another good article with many scriptural passages:

https://www.motheringfromtheheart.com/whatgod.htm

Another article states:

“Religion writer David Gibson, in fact, contends that “the earliest symbol of God’s love for humanity was the infant Jesus at Mary’s breast,” going so far as to note that it was only during the Reformation that the crucifixion had supplanted the breast-feeding image of Mary.”

Google “breastfeeding Mary”, they are endless...

Edited November 24, 2019 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And if using religion to determine what should and shouldn’t be viewed, the Temple garment covers the same areas for all.  So appealing to religion to justify a different standard there may backfire imo (for Saints anyway).

When we are not wearing our garments, our church has very different standards of modesty in relation to male breasts and female breasts.  I don’t see any potential for backfire whatsoever.  I think we all unquestionably know what the church’s position on this issue would be.  I don’t see them joining the free-the-nipple club, nor do I see them requiring boys to wear shirts at the lake or for their male sporting teams at BYU to cover up.

An appeal to our religion absolutely justifies different standards - it is clearly spelled out in the FSOY pamphlet.

[cherryTreez]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you not see nursing as sacred?

Breastfeeding imprints a sacred connection and bond on the heart of the mother and child which is unparalleled in man (thanks to oxytocin).  It is a vital function which has been critical to the survival as a species.  For the same reason that our genitals and sex are sacred for the creation of life, why would nursing not be considered sacred for the unique and critical role of sustaining life?

No more than I see a cow feeding its calf, a mare her foal, a dog her puppies, and a cat her kittens. It's feeding a baby. I have nursed 4 babies for over 5 years in total.  I have fed babies formula and goat's milk. They were happy, healthy babies. 

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

No more than I see a cow feeding its calf, a mare her foal, a dog her puppies, and a cat her kittens. It's feeding a baby. I have nursed 4 babies for over 5 years in total.  I have fed babies formula and goat's milk. They were happy, healthy babies. 

Come on...The function of the female breast/nipple is no more sacred than the function of the male breast/nipple (whatever that is)?  You are going to disregard all of the symbology and religious history?

One has been central to the survival of our species, and the other...is...um....there, I guess.

Even my heart melts at the sight of my wife holding my baby girl in her bosom, listening to the gentle and soft sounds of suckling and swallowing, angelic coos, with breaks of breaths through her nares and eyes gently closed, as my wife gazes down with a smile of pure agape and soft eyes.  I am witnessing something profoundly sacred that reminds me of my relationship and unbreakable bond with God.
“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee”

 

Edited November 24, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

he function of the female breast/nipple is no more sacred than the function of the male breast/nipple (whatever that is)?  You are going to disregard all of the symbology and religious history?

No more sacred imo than the arms that cradle a child or guide their first steps, male or female arms.

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

No more sacred imo than the arms that cradle a child or guide their first steps, male or female arms.

Great, but we are comparing breast to breast.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Great, but we are comparing breast to breast.

You are suggesting, are you not, that it is the greater sacredness of the female breast to the male breast that leads our culture to cover it. If arms are as sacred as female breasts, than should we not be covering arms as well...or any other part of the body that might have great sacred significance, such as eyes or mouth (breath of life).

Edited November 24, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are suggesting, are you not, that it is the greater sacredness of the female breast to the male breast that leads our culture to cover it. If arms are as sacred as female breasts, than should we not be covering arms as well...or any other part of the body that might have sacred significance, such as eyes or mouth?

Add to that the penis and vagina too I guess,  it’s all equally sacred right?  Or is it?  Culturally, I’d say not.

Edited November 24, 2019 by pogi