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

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

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.

I see.  I guess I disagree because not all women, or men, feel the same culturally about "clothing freedom".  It seems to be a feminist movement, at least that is what the defendant called herself. 

9 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

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.

I was speaking about constitutional law and legislation, not eternal law. Remove law - as in anarchy - and your liberties and freedoms are easily violated with no protection from the law.  Anarchy gives you freedom - until someone steals it from you, simply because they can.

16 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

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).

I did mean anarchy.  Again, I am speaking of the law-of-the-land not eternal law.  Anarchy is the removal of law in that sense, and to remove constitutional law would be a stumbling block to Zion.  "Constitutional law should be befriended, D&C 98:5–6.  The Lord caused the Constitution to be established, D&C 101:77, 80."  The constitution "supports the principles of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges." according to our scriptures and doctrine. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/constitution?lang=eng

 

[Metis_LDS]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada        This has been in parts of Canada already.       Topfreedom is allowed in Ontario, set by the precedent in the case of Gwen Jacob. The acting executive director of Municipal Licensing and Standards said that while "there's no bylaw that governs toplessness", "it is legal for women to go topless on the streets of Toronto" according to a National Post article.                                                                                                         Mind you you will not see much in the winter months!!!

Edited November 20, 2019 by Metis_LDS
addition

[Anonymous Mormon]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

 

Agree!

So the question becomes is it wrong for a community (be it a local community, state or country) to require some level of covering in public and different levels depending on biology? Specifically if the goal is to keep those parts of the body that the community feels is sexualized private. Currently the US is less strict than Saudi Arabia but more strict than Europe.

I believe that a community should be able to set these kinds of restrictions. And personally because of my background and the knowledge of how my mind/body react to a woman's bare breasts (again, I don't know if this a culturally created or simply innate reaction or both) I am in favor of not allowing women to go topless in Utah. I think it's okay for there to be this double standard because bare breasts ARE sexualized in the US and just getting rid of the rule won't change this.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Anonymous Mormon

[JLHPROF]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

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

Immodest, male or female.

Immoral or sinning is a context issue.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, 2BizE said:

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.

Which is ironic since covering nakedness was the result of the fall.  A temporary condition we hope to be redeemed from.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Agree!

So the question becomes is it wrong for a community (be it a local community, state or country) to require some level of covering in public and different levels depending on biology? Specifically if the goal is to keep those parts of the body that the community feels is sexualized private. Currently the US is less strict than Saudi Arabia but more strict than Europe.

I believe that a community should be able to set these kinds of restrictions. And personally because of my background and the knowledge of how my mind/body react to a woman's bare breasts (again, I don't know if this a culturally created or simply innate reaction or both) I am in favor of not allowing women to go topless in Utah. I think it's okay for there to be this double standard because bare breasts ARE sexualized in the US and just getting rid of the rule won't change this.

What you may not realize is that a man's bare chest is sexualized, too.  In the US and everywhere else, simply because it is a display of a man's body... which is a sexual body of the male kind and sexualized in that way.  Sex is either male or female.  Haven't you ever filled out a form asking what your sex is?  Some men may not think much about displaying their own bare chest, or another man displaying his bare chest, but when women who are sexually attracted to men see a man's bare chest, in physically fit condition, they see something that registers with their sexuality.  They may not like to see a man immodestly dressed, because they prefer a man who dresses modestly, but it still registers with their sexuality as something they like, even though they may not want to see it lewdly displayed.   And women who don't care about modesty can whistle and give cat calls just as well as any man can who likes to see a women display her bare chest.  There are strip joints for women, too, where some women go to see a man display his body, and their hootering and hollering doesn't wait for him to take his pants off.  Taking his shirt off is a big thing for them, too, as long as he is physically fit and not a fat slob of a guy who doesn't take very good care of his body.

[strappinglad]

30 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sex is either male or female

Boy, are you out of the current loop! ( sarcasm alert ) 

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What you may not realize is that a man's bare chest is sexualized, too.  In the US and everywhere else, simply because it is a display of a man's body... which is a sexual body of the male kind and sexualized in that way.  Sex is either male or female.  Haven't you ever filled out a form asking what your sex is?  Some men may not think much about displaying their own bare chest, or another man displaying his bare chest, but when women who are sexually attracted to men see a man's bare chest, in physically fit condition, they see something that registers with their sexuality.  They may not like to see a man immodestly dressed, because they prefer a man who dresses modestly, but it still registers with their sexuality as something they like, even though they may not want to see it lewdly displayed.   And women who don't care about modesty can whistle and give cat calls just as well as any man can who likes to see a women display her bare chest.  There are strip joints for women, too, where some women go to see a man display his body, and their hootering and hollering doesn't wait for him to take his pants off.  Taking his shirt off is a big thing for them, too, as long as he is physically fit and not a fat slob of a guy who doesn't take very good care of his body.

I don't think a man's areola and nipple, cleavage, or lower breast are sexualized in quite the same way.  It is not the cultural symbol of sex in the same way that a woman's breast is.  Cultural perspectives toward the man's nipple just is not the same and you know it.    I would argue that the male abs are far, far more sexualized then their nipples.  Besides that, the point is not to ban all things that are sexualized - because EVERYTHING is sexualized, even our blue jeans!  The point is to protect cultural dress standards and norms of decency and civility.  It is not culturally perceived as lewd for a man to expose a nipple.  

Edited November 20, 2019 by pogi

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

If everyone went topless, initially I expect that many would be aroused even by the less physically attractive.  However, it is most likely intermittent exposure plus the sexual context of much of that exposure that places breasts as erotica in almost all contexts in America.

Make it a frequent occurrence in nonsexual situations and it is likely most will become desensitized to it and require sexual context (such as behaviour cues) in addition to nudity for it to be perceived as erotica.

It would be interesting to study accounts of doctors or people who travel equally between countries of different standards.  Do male doctors get aroused by nonsexual context of female breasts outside of their medical work, do travelers change in how they are triggered by the same sight when they are aware in the culture they are currently in others would see it as sexual behaviour to go topless?

Edited November 20, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

what is appropriate civil behavior given that culture?

Is it inappropriate to try change culture?

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

What you may not realize is that a man's bare chest is sexualized, too.  In the US and everywhere else, simply because it is a display of a man's body... which is a sexual body of the male kind and sexualized in that way.  Sex is either male or female.  Haven't you ever filled out a form asking what your sex is?  Some men may not think much about displaying their own bare chest, or another man displaying his bare chest, but when women who are sexually attracted to men see a man's bare chest, in physically fit condition, they see something that registers with their sexuality.  They may not like to see a man immodestly dressed, because they prefer a man who dresses modestly, but it still registers with their sexuality as something they like, even though they may not want to see it lewdly displayed.   And women who don't care about modesty can whistle and give cat calls just as well as any man can who likes to see a women display her bare chest.  There are strip joints for women, too, where some women go to see a man display his body, and their hootering and hollering doesn't wait for him to take his pants off.  Taking his shirt off is a big thing for them, too, as long as he is physically fit and not a fat slob of a guy who doesn't take very good care of his body.

@Ahab - Your Response above was directed at this comment I made: "I think it's okay for there to be this double standard because bare breasts ARE sexualized in the US"

I agree with you that men's chests can be sexualized by women. As can their biceps - in fact women seem to be attracted to men's bulging biceps as much or more so than their pecs - or at least this is what I get from TV and muscle magazines (I don't know because my biceps don't bulge).

So what exactly are you proposing? That we ban chests of men showing? Would you also ban biceps? How far do you go since the entire body can be sexual, as you pointed out? Or do you just ban none of it and make Utah a nudist colony?

I guess what I am saying is, sure I don't disagree with anything in your comment above. But how do you propose we make it relate to the topic at hand?

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is it inappropriate to try change culture?

No.  But I think that needs to happen before changing the law which is really built to protect cultural sensibilities.

As I stated in the OP:

Quote

If you can succeed in changing long-held cultural norms of civility and decency, by all means I have no problem with changing the law at that point...

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

If everyone went topless, initially I expect that many would be aroused even by the less physically attractive.  However, it is most likely intermittent exposure plus the sexual context of much of that exposure that places breasts as erotica in almost all contexts in America.

Make it a frequent occurrence in nonsexual situations and it is likely most will become desensitized to it and require sexual context (such as behaviour cues) in addition to nudity for it to be perceived as erotica.

I agree that culture helps dictate what is sexual v. non-sexual.

So are you advocating that we do this in Utah and take away all bans on nudity?

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

No.  But I think that needs to happen before changing the law which is really built to protect cultural sensibilities.

As I stated in the OP:

 

If the law prevents exposure, not sure how cultural sensibilities could change significantly in general.

I think one could study interracial and homosexual relationships to see the interplay of law and culture in acceptance, but it would not be completely applicable to the topless situation because both are culturally pushing for full normalization where with toplessness we also have the other end being presented at the same time, the body being highly sexualized at the same time as the push to desexualize in certain contexts.

PS:  I don't believe the way in general Europe approaches female breasts is a good example of how to change culture, since they continue to sexualize female breasts even as they increase opportunities for exposure.

I wonder if areas of Scandinavia could provide a reference for a culture closer to our own given the long time communal bathing culture.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

Ah, now fat shaming the deplorables are we?

Of course nobody in the ward looks like anyone at Walmart, so we are lucky because appearance is the major factor in having a successful celestial marriage.  We all look like movie stars!  No wonder we have so many kids!  

 

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah, now fat shaming the deplorables are we?

Of course nobody in the ward looks like anyone at Walmart, so we are lucky because appearance is the major factor in having a successful celestial marriage.  We all look like movie stars!  No wonder we have so many kids!  

 

Did I say fat? 

And aren’t we talking about what our eyes are seeing? 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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.

Um, my smoking hot wife happens to shop at Walmart. So there. Stereotype busted.  

 

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

@Ahab - Your Response above was directed at this comment I made: "I think it's okay for there to be this double standard because bare breasts ARE sexualized in the US"

I agree with you that men's chests can be sexualized by women. As can their biceps - in fact women seem to be attracted to men's bulging biceps as much or more so than their pecs - or at least this is what I get from TV and muscle magazines (I don't know because my biceps don't bulge).

So what exactly are you proposing? That we ban chests of men showing? Would you also ban biceps? How far do you go since the entire body can be sexual, as you pointed out? Or do you just ban none of it and make Utah a nudist colony?

I guess what I am saying is, sure I don't disagree with anything in your comment above. But how do you propose we make it relate to the topic at hand?

Just a ban on all indecent exposure, instead of picking only on women when they expose their bare chest.  Is that too much to ask?  

Some will say yes, some will say No, but really, all I am asking is that we be fair instead of picking on only the women.

Neither men nor women should expose their chest in public. Or their genitals, either.  A misdemeanor crime punishable by a monetary fine of $500 for each incident.

I think the woman filing the law suit might be satisfied with just that.  With fancier language, of course.  

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the law prevents exposure, not sure how cultural sensibilities could change significantly in general..

Ya, I think it is a loosing battle at this point to try and change the culture, to be honest, and I don’t think that repeated exposure is the right way - that isn’t working in Europe.

At this point you have religion supporting the culture and the media/advertising/porn industry making billions off the culture.  I don’t think you can fight both extremes of society and win.  Rewiring men’s and women’s brains will take generations for sexual perceptions and identities to change.   Sometimes, it just takes time.  

[Prof]

I never liked the term "stripling warrior"

Too similar.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't think a man's areola and nipple, cleavage, or lower breast are sexualized in quite the same way.  It is not the cultural symbol of sex in the same way that a woman's breast is.  Cultural perspectives toward the man's nipple just is not the same and you know it.    I would argue that the male abs are far, far more sexualized then their nipples.  Besides that, the point is not to ban all things that are sexualized - because EVERYTHING is sexualized, even our blue jeans!  The point is to protect cultural dress standards and norms of decency and civility.  It is not culturally perceived as lewd for a man to expose a nipple.  

 You should talk to some women about this.  Or men who find other men's chests sexually attractive.  Do a survey.  Contrast a woman's hips with a man's abs.  And a man's pecs with a woman's breasts. With both men and women in physically fit condition.

Ask lots of women if they get hot and bothered or even only slightly sexually aroused when they see an attractive man's chest in physically fit condition.  YOU and some other men might not consider that "lewd" but lots of other people would and do consider that to be "crude and offensive in a sexual way", which is what being lewd is all about, whether they would welcome seeing it or turn away because they don't want to see a man displaying himself so immodestly.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think the woman filing the law suit might be satisfied with just that.  With fancier language, of course.  

She is not filling a law suit.  She is being charged for lewdness towards children.  Somehow, I don’t think your suggestions would make her situation better...

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

She is not filling a law suit.  She is being charged for lewdness towards children.  Somehow, I don’t think your suggestions would make her situation better...

Hmm.  Okay, somehow I got the idea that she was filing a lawsuit because she didn't think it was fair for a woman to be charged with lewdness for that while a man wouldn't be.  Seeing it as a double standard and unfair to women.

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 You should talk to some women about this.  Or men who find other men's chests sexually attractive.  Do a survey.  Contrast a woman's hips with a man's abs.  And a man's pecs with a woman's breasts. With both men and women in physically fit condition.

Ask lots of women if they get hot and bothered or even only slightly sexually aroused when they see an attractive man's chest in physically fit condition.  YOU and some other men might not consider that "lewd" but lots of other people would and do consider that to be "crude and offensive in a sexual way", which is what being lewd is all about, whether they would welcome seeing it or turn away because they don't want to see a man displaying himself so immodestly.

I never said women don’t find it sexually attractive. Ya are missing the point, and I don’t intend to try and help based on past experiences with you 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I never said women don’t find it sexually attractive. Ya are missing the point, and I don’t intend to try and help based on past experiences with you 

We're done then.  Carry on.