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

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

.Pure speculation but it appears that one or both of the biological parents have weaponized child protective service and/or the police to continue post divorce attacks on another.

One can understand why the biological mother might be irate over the situation however.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

On another note, nudity on television is common all over continental Europe.  Regular TV, not subscription.

I was watching a morning soap opera in Spain a few years ago, and there was a nude scene.  This was around ten in the morning.

So, there's culture and then there's culture.  Some of you need to get out more.

Precisely!

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think you missed that the ACLU is arguing a much larger constitutional point.  If they win this case, that is just the beginning... 

It wasn’t a neighbor, it was her step-children.

i can see how it is unfair to say it's okay for men to walk around topless but not okay for women, but if any changes are going to be made from this I hope it will be that it will be considered indecent for both men and women to walk around topless or bottomless in public.

In a person's own home it's a little more complicated to make a general rule against being naked because that is where people commonly take their clothes on and off for bathing and sexual relations.

[2BizE]

Most of us have probably seen a National Geographic documentary where they show tribes of people in Africa or the Amazon.  Both the women and men often are topless and sometimes bottomless.  When you watch these folks, they are not ashamed of their nakedness. There is no guilt.  Women may or may not be nursing their babies.  Kids are not poking fun of the breasts of the teenage girls.  It is so natural that people don’t care. Their nudity is not sexualized.

So , where did our communities change from living lives where nudity is not sexualized?  Religion.

Religion has developed the culture of shame of our body parts.

Wouldn’t it be great if our culture was at a point where seeing body parts was a non-event?  Our ancestors lived that way for thousands of years...

 

 

 

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

One can understand why the biological mother might be irate over the situation however.

Understand but not necessarily agree that she should be irate about her children seeing their step mother with her top clothing off to cool down from the heat while explaining that a woman's bare chest is not any more shameful than a man's bare chest.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Ahab

[california boy]

I spend quite a bit of time in Europe.  The stark difference in how women's breasts and nudity is handled is remarkable.  I was in Munich a couple of years ago.  There is a river that runs through the town.  A lot of people sunbath along the river.  Some choose to be nude, others not.  We were standing there on the bridge looking down and I saw a line of school kids, I would guess around 7 years old.  There was an adult at both ends of the line.  They were walking along the river, amongst the sunbathers.  Not sure why, but the fact that they were down there was surprising.  My friend from Munich said that nudity in Europe is not viewed the same as in the U.S.  It is not lewd.  It is not obscene.  Children grow up not sexualizing nudity.  So a kid in Munich doesn't have the same viewpoint as a kid in the U.S. would have.  

Of course it is common to see topless women on the beaches throughout Europe.  They aren't sexualized any more than a man's chest.  It is the U.S that has this double standard.  If people don't freak out about a man's chest, can you give a solid reason other than tradition that women's breasts are sexualized?

Which side of the pond is the right viewpoint?  I would say people in the U.S would say they are right.  And I would say Europeans would say they are right.  It is all cultural and has nothing to do with sin.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you really wear a top when you go swimming?

I do, yes.  One of the rare times I wear a T-shirt with no other shirt over it.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Understand but not necessarily agree that she should be irate about her children seeing her step mother with her top clothing off to cool down from the heat while explaining that a woman's bare chest is not any more shameful than a man's bare chest.

Go re-read my OP.  Don't make this about the body itself!  I think we all agree that there is nothing "inherently" shameful or obscene about the human body or its parts.  The body itself is not shameful, it is how we use it with disrespect to cultural norms and attitudes that is shameful.  

One can cool off without offending their children, and disrespecting the biological mother, and cultural norms. 

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Go re-read my OP.  Don't make this about the body itself!  I think we all agree that there is nothing "inherently" shameful or obscene about the human body or its parts.  The body itself is not shameful, it is how we use it with disrespect to cultural norms and attitudes that is shameful.  

One can cool off without offending their children, and disrespecting the biological mother, and cultural norms. 

My point was that some will understand and agree while some others will understand and not agree that the biological mother should be irate over what happened, if she is irate about it.

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Wouldn’t it be great if our culture was at a point where seeing body parts was a non-event?  Our ancestors lived that way for thousands of years...

No, that would be terrible!  We are sexual beings, and we have ALWAYS been sexually attracted to naked bodies.  Different cultures have always been sexually attracted to different aspects of the human body - we would not have survived as a species without that trait!  All animals do it!   Even ancient cultures, which you glorify, sometimes went to extreme measures to attract the opposite sex with different cultural fetishes surrounding certain body parts - even to the point of distorting their body.  Today, in our American culture, one dominant cultural fetish or fixation is female breasts.  I don't think we can say if that is morally right or wrong, it just is!  The question is not whether being sexually aroused by the human body is right or wrong (I would argue it is good), but given that it is a thing - what is appropriate civil behavior given that culture?

Edited November 20, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, that would be terrible!  We are sexual beings, and we have ALWAYS been sexually attracted to naked bodies.  Different cultures have always been sexually attracted to different aspects of the human body - we would not have survived as a species without that trait!  All animals do it!   Even ancient cultures, which you glorify, sometimes went to extreme measures to attract the opposite sex with different cultural fetishes surrounding certain body parts - even to the point of distorting their body.  Today, in our American culture, one dominant cultural fetish or fixation is female breasts.  I don't think we can say if that is morally right or wrong, it just is!  The question is not whether being sexually aroused by the human body is right or wrong (I would argue it is good), but given that it is a thing - what is appropriate culturally. 

I would say some people are sexually attracted to a man's bare chest, if the man is physically in good shape.  And yet in our worldly culture some think it's okay to allow any man to walk around with his chest exposed.

So don't make this just about women's bodies.  Our worldly culture has a double standard about this and it is time we start realizing that men can be as sexually attractive as women, depending on who you ask and the men or women displayed.

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would say some people are sexually attracted to a man's bare chest, if the man is physically in good shape.  And yet in our worldly culture some think it's okay to allow any man to walk around with his chest exposed.

So don't make this just about women's bodies.  Our worldly culture has a double standard about this and it is time we start realizing that men can be as sexually attractive as women, depending on who you ask and the men or women displayed.

It is not the same.  Like it or not, cultural sexual views of women's vs men's breasts are not equal.  What is considered culturally appropriate and inappropriate is not equal.  You can argue that it should be different, but that doesn't change the current culture.  "Some people" are attracted to feet.  Should we ban all flip-flops!  This is not about "some people", this is about culturally dominant norms of decency.    

Edited November 20, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

Just now, pogi said:

It is not the same.  Like it or not, cultural sexual views of women's vs men's breasts are not equal.  What is considered culturally sexually appropriate and inappropriate is not equal.  You can argue that it should be different, but that doesn't change the current culture.  "Some people" are attracted to feet.  Should we ban all flip-flops!  This is not about "some people", this is about cultural norms of decency.    

That is my point, and that is the woman's point in her law suit.  It is not equal and it is not right, so I"m hoping this woman will somehow be able to change the law to change what culture considers acceptable in society.  The culture is dictated by the law, as I see it.  What the laws allow, the culture embraces.  Not everybody is into everything but there is some of everything in our culture, because the laws allow it.  And when laws are violated we either work to change the laws or we seek to prosecute people for violating those laws.   This woman is just one example of someone who is in violation of our cultural laws and she is now seeking to change things. Similar to how same sex sexual relations was once in violation of our culture and now it is part of our culture because the laws were changed to make it it acceptable in our culture.

We'll see how this goes, and I hope some changes do come out of it.  I would like our culture to realize that it should at least be fair and consistent when making laws that apply to what is decent and indecent.  The time for double standards needs to come to an end.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That is my point...

Then you didn't read what I wrote. 

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It is not equal and it is not right, so I"m hoping this woman will somehow be able to change the law to change what culture considers acceptable in society. 

Except she want to expose her breasts and you want her and men to cover up!  So, you don't really hope that this woman gets her way.

If you view inequality in mortality as "not right", then it must pain you to be a latter-day saint where we acknowledge and celebrate our differences. 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 The culture is dictated by the law, as I see it.  What the laws allow, the culture embraces. 

Oops, I forgot this part...

What planet do you live on?  What came first, the culture or the constitution?  Gay rights? etc. etc. etc.

Laws that do not appeal to local culture struggle to survive and usually fail.  The very idea of a voting democracy places the will of the people, a.k.a "culture" before dictatorial law. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

How could you possibly know?  So womansplain what men find erotic then won't you?

Sorry but that's the harsh reality.

Tell Hugh Hefner that men do not find women's breasts "erotic".  He built an empire on it.

 Sure it's cultural- so what?   What else would it be?   I do not live where women walk around on the street topless.  In a culture where women wear burkas, I guess a woman's hair is seen as erotic.  But are you going to tell the men in that culture to get over it?  You are free to do so but as far as changing the culture that way?  

Let's try a "topless mall" and see how it changes the culture.   I think you will have tons of male customers to experiment on.  Of course like just reading the articles in Playboy,  the men will just be there to find good deals on lawn mowers.

Dream on.

Whoa. 

 I forgot to add IMO , as I do on just about literally everything I post here.  My bad.  

Imo, your average American is not sexy.  Imo, your average Walmart shopper is not gonna do much for anyone’s libido if they take their top off.  Instead, Imo, they will look ridiculous. 

Hugh’s  bevy was made of young women who were abnormally attractive. IMO.  

I think the idea of women walking around America topless is ridiculous.  But to be sure, I’d be willing to bet that your average liberated torso won’t be comparable to Hughs harem.   Been to Walmart lately?  That’s your average slice of America.  If everyone goes topless in Walmart they’d better pass out anti nausea meds on the way in.  IMO, of course. 

 

 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Then you didn't read what I wrote. 

I read it.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Except she want to expose her breasts and you want her and men to cover up!  So, you don't really hope that this woman gets her way.

I just want things to be fair and equal in this regard.  I'm not concerned about her baring her chest in her own home to her own family, as long as its not for some evil reason.  In public though I think our culture should see it's indecent for both men and women to bare their chests.

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you view inequality in mortality as "not right", then it must pain you to be a latter-day saint where we acknowledge and celebrate our differences. 

Depends on what those differences are.  I know we're not all equally intelligent or righteous or obedient to our Lord's commandments and I'm glad to see we're not throwing any parties to celebrate that.

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not concerned about her baring her chest in her own home to her own family, as long as its not for some evil reason.  In public though I think our culture should see it's indecent for both men and women to bare their chests.

I don't think her step-children or the biological mother care what you think.  

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Depends on what those differences are.  I know we're not all equally intelligent or righteous or obedient to our Lord's commandments and I'm glad to see we're not throwing any parties to celebrate that.

Lots of differences, even in dress and in the temple.  "it's not fair!"

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think her step-children or the biological mother care what you think.  

I don't care that they don't care, so we're even.

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Lots of differences, even in dress and in the temple.  "it's not fair!"

You apparently don't understand what I have been talking about.

[Duncan]

I guess one could say toppings are extra🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I spend quite a bit of time in Europe.  The stark difference in how women's breasts and nudity is handled is remarkable.  I was in Munich a couple of years ago.  There is a river that runs through the town.  A lot of people sunbath along the river.  Some choose to be nude, others not.  We were standing there on the bridge looking down and I saw a line of school kids, I would guess around 7 years old.  There was an adult at both ends of the line.  They were walking along the river, amongst the sunbathers.  Not sure why, but the fact that they were down there was surprising.  My friend from Munich said that nudity in Europe is not viewed the same as in the U.S.  It is not lewd.  It is not obscene.  Children grow up not sexualizing nudity.  So a kid in Munich doesn't have the same viewpoint as a kid in the U.S. would have.  

Of course it is common to see topless women on the beaches throughout Europe.  They aren't sexualized any more than a man's chest.  It is the U.S that has this double standard.  If people don't freak out about a man's chest, can you give a solid reason other than tradition that women's breasts are sexualized?

Which side of the pond is the right viewpoint?  I would say people in the U.S would say they are right.  And I would say Europeans would say they are right.  It is all cultural and has nothing to do with sin.

I don't totally agree with this. In my experience both as a youth and as an adult, having lived in and traveled extensively in Europe, even though breasts are allowed to be bare they are still definitely sexualized. As a youth when I lived in Spain the Spanish boys would all make comments about the Spanish girls who sunbathed topless. The men still gawked and stared when they felt like the women were not looking. There were still newsstand kiosks on all the street corners with topless women magazines as the primary thing they were selling or post-card stands at the beach with 50% being topless women postcards while the other 50% were of the other scenery in the area. 

It is the exact same here in the US for a girl in a string bikini. There is no way that a very attractive young girl in a string bikini can walk down the beach in the US without the young men (and many older men) sexualizing her. They will do so with looks, comments to one another, inappropriate thoughts, and in some places whistles or cat-calls. 

Also, I recently read a news article that old-school feminists in Spain who fought to allow topless sunbathing are frustrated that fewer young women go topless now than before. The reason that this is the case is because there are entire websites in Europe dedicated to people swapping topless photos of sunbathers and it is awkward and embarrassing for these young women to feel like they are being sexualized online and that the images will always be there.
(note: I don't have a link to this article and won't go find one because whether it's my American conditioning or I was just born that way, I personally do find women's breasts to be sexual and very attractive and don't want to try to wade through a Google search looking for this - you can do your own search)

I am not saying whether it's right or wrong with this comment. I am just saying that in Europe they do not all have a non-sexualized view of breasts. Breasts are still sexual objects, just like string bikinis in the US. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I do, yes.  One of the rare times I wear a T-shirt with no other shirt over it.

And do you believe men who don't wear a shirt are immoral or sinning?

[Maidservant]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Can't a person be both?

This was a comment only on your use of the word feminist, because it seemed at least in that sentence, that feminists only would want clothing freedom. My suggestion is that being a woman will do that for you (not an ism), or, more broadly, men and women i.e. human beings.

Quote

Free, as in anarchy free?  I don't think that "being a person" is intrinsically tied to the ideals of anarchy.  Maybe I am misunderstanding you.  Anarchy certainly doesn't make one "safe".

My comments about feminism were marked off from my further comments that included a reference to anarchy.

Free and safe in body, which is a challenge and desire for all people at all times in all places. Not an ism.

Being a person is tied to being a person.

Quote

Legislation has demonstrably been the solution to countless atrocities and injustices and in protecting our liberties by law.

Legislation and law are not the same thing. Law is eternal and creates only good things and only good people and only good society (Zion). We either understand and live this Law, or we don't--love, freedom, integrity, etc. What we've seen is in our (much too slow to repent history) that there have been instances of legislation that have been brought more into line with law (Law, with a capital "L", if you will). Legislation often violates Law. But the legislation that has better represented Law would not take place in our history if people's minds and hearts were not already, or had finally become, persuaded of the law. Legislation is an unnecessary and problematic piece of the equation, in my opinion.

Quote

 That is very idealistic and would require a Zion people.  

Indeed. My point. That's the only work I'm in, the work of Zion; and I trust that you are, too.

Quote

I agree, Zion cannot be brought about through legislation. 

Agreed.

Quote

But removing all law will certainly be an even larger stumbling block for the establishment of Zion.

Not sure if you meant anarchy, but if you did, anarchy is not the removal of law. Law cannot be removed; it's integral to the universe. It never changes. Law is the cessation of oppression, violence, etc. Anarchy is community and society without a state, bound by Law and not rulers, precisely because a state (including its edicts, which in our version we call legislation) violates the Law constantly. Anarchy is the love of the law (not of legislation).

Quote

Your freedom to "explore" cannot rob my freedom to walk in public without being civilly violated.

 

Yep, dang, freedom is so tricky, figuring out the line of where the harm is done to whom and when, so that no harm or the least amount of harm is done; Golden Rule and all that. Both people in your scenario would like to be free to walk in public. The trick is no one losing, but both coming to an agreement that blesses both (societally), and based on what we can bear at the moment but perhaps walking a step further into the  light.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Maidservant

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I don't totally agree with this. In my experience both as a youth and as an adult, having lived in and traveled extensively in Europe, even though breasts are allowed to be bare they are still definitely sexualized. As a youth when I lived in Spain the Spanish boys would all make comments about the Spanish girls who sunbathed topless. The men still gawked and stared when they felt like the women were not looking. There were still newsstand kiosks on all the street corners with topless women magazines as the primary thing they were selling or post-card stands at the beach with 50% being topless women postcards while the other 50% were of the other scenery in the area. 

It is the exact same here in the US for a girl in a string bikini. There is no way that a very attractive young girl in a string bikini can walk down the beach in the US without the young men (and many older men) sexualizing her. They will do so with looks, comments to one another, inappropriate thoughts, and in some places whistles or cat-calls. 

Also, I recently read a news article that old-school feminists in Spain who fought to allow topless sunbathing are frustrated that fewer young women go topless now than before. The reason that this is the case is because there are entire websites in Europe dedicated to people swapping topless photos of sunbathers and it is awkward and embarrassing for these young women to feel like they are being sexualized online and that the images will always be there.
(note: I don't have a link to this article and won't go find one because whether it's my American conditioning or I was just born that way, I personally do find women's breasts to be sexual and very attractive and don't want to try to wade through a Google search looking for this - you can do your own search)

I am not saying whether it's right or wrong with this comment. I am just saying that in Europe they do not all have a non-sexualized view of breasts. Breasts are still sexual objects, just like string bikinis in the US. 

You are right on.  Whether a breast is bare or in a bikini, the reaction men will have is exactly the same.  Young men (and many older men) in Europe also sexualize women in bikinis as well.  Heck they sexualize them in full length dresses.  I assume there are plenty of web sites with women in bikini's at the beach exploiting them in the exact same way.  

I guess my point is, it is not the bare breasts that are causing the sexualizing, it is the innate attraction that all of us are born with.  Personally bare breasts or bikini's do nothing for me.  So it is obviously not the bare breasts or the bikini that is causing the sexualization.  No matter what the law is, or what women wear or don't wear, that sexualization will continue.  

 

[Ahab]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

And do you believe men who don't wear a shirt are immoral or sinning?

Immoral by being immodestly dressed.  Being indecently dressed, instead.  Perhaps ignorantly sinning if they don't realize they should be more modestly dressed, if they are able to dress more modestly.

The concept of "ignorantly sinning" is something I just picked up on recently, by the way.  Kudos to smac for helping me discover this concept!

 

 

edited to add:  and of course I'm not talking about when men are preparing to bathe or have sexual relations, righteously.  Taking their shirts off then is not a problem then.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Ahab