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

[Anonymous Mormon]

8 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.

Some times I forget whose comments I am reading and I laugh because I think they are being sarcastic or trolling. Then I remember that you are only ever serious and I laugh even harder.

This happened as I imagined Pogi doing this survey you suggested with various women in his ward: "Sister Smith, would you say you get 'hot and bothered' or 'only slightly sexually aroused' when you see an attractive man's chest in physically fit condition?"

[provoman]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The point is to protect cultural dress standards and norms of decency and civility.  

Why should the law be permitted to protect "norms" or perhaps in other words traditions?

If an exposed female breast is not obscene while breast feeding, why is a non-breastfeeding female breast obscene.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour 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.

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?

It would still be indecent exposure and immodest, for men and for women, even if the majority of people all over the world thought it was okay.

And even if the majority of members of our Lord's church thought it was okay, it would still be indecent exposure and immodest.

Being desensitized to it doesn't make the act itself any better.  It's still wrong and indecent and immodest even if the majority of people don't think so.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Some times I forget whose comments I am reading and I laugh because I think they are being sarcastic or trolling. Then I remember that you are only ever serious and I laugh even harder.

Heh heh, no, I do try to be funny sometimes.   Maybe I'm just not very good at it, sometimes, but I do like to keep trying, sometimes.

Quote

This happened as I imagined Pogi doing this survey you suggested with various women in his ward: "Sister Smith, would you say you get 'hot and bothered' or 'only slightly sexually aroused' when you see an attractive man's chest in physically fit condition?"

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Ahab

[california boy]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

What is ironic is that it was Satan's idea that nakedness was shameful, not God,

[Anonymous Mormon]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It would still be indecent exposure and immodest, for men and for women, even if the majority of people all over the world thought it was okay.

And even if the majority of members of our Lord's church thought it was okay, it would still be indecent exposure and immodest.

Being desensitized to it doesn't make the act itself any better.  It's still wrong and indecent and immodest even if the majority of people don't think so.

You are talking like it is a sin. Do you think it is a sin for a man to swim without a top on? Does it require the atonement to cover?

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is ironic is that it was Satan's idea that nakedness was shameful, not God,

Deceit is what he excels at.  It isn't shameful, but we should be modest instead of just letting it all hang out in public. 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, provoman said:

Why should the law be permitted to protect "norms" or perhaps in other words traditions?

Because that's what they are and that's what they do.  All of our laws are based on cultural perspectives, beliefs, and traditions.  What is considered "lewd" is a cultural perspective and should not be dictated by law contrary to cultural sensibilities.  The law protects cultural sensibilities - that is it's purpose.  The constitution itself is nothing more than cultural beliefs built to protect cultural beliefs.   Why should a law be allowed to define what is lewd contrary to cultural sensibilities, wouldn’t that be a self defeating purpose of lewdness laws?

45 minutes ago, provoman said:

If an exposed female breast is not obscene while breast feeding, why is a non-breastfeeding female breast obscene.

 I feel like I have addressed both of these points many times on this thread.  Perhaps I am not making myself clear.   There is nothing "inherently" obscene about the human body or any of its parts.  As I said elsewhere:

Quote

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.  

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by pogi

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

You are talking like it is a sin. Do you think it is a sin for a man to swim without a top on? Does it require the atonement to cover?

Someone asked me something like this earlier in this thread.  I can answer again though.  It is a sin and immoral to be immodest.  Nothing shameful about our bodies, though.  We should just treat them as sacred temples. Being modest and taking care of ourselves, and others, is important.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Ahab

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Deceit is what he excels at.  It isn't shameful, but we should be modest instead of just letting it all hang out in public. 

So did Satan deceive Adam and Eve when he told them to cover themselves?  

And have you considered that at that point, they had been naked in the Garden of Eden, even during all those interactions they had with God before Satan told them to get dressed.

Aren't we feeding into the wishes of Satan every time we put on our clothes?  

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

In public though I think our culture should see it's indecent for both men and women to bare their chests.

You may want to have a chat with Church leaders regarding their flagship university ...

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Based on personal experience, about three minutes as a full participant at a clothing-optional beach is all it takes. Naked men who aren't creeps simply don't have the option of sexualising others around them, and soon they realise how much of this is conditioning and how completely it's a choice.

Of course, I have a culturally different vantage point. I went to dinner last night with two of my mates, one a married Church member and one a single 'gentile'. A woman at a table between ours and the buffet area fed her young toddler intermittently throughout the evening. (We were there for three hours.) I personally saw both of her unclothed breasts. I assume the men with me also did. None of us even mentioned it. I think I noticed because I found it interesting that the child was choosing mother's milk over the soft-serve ice cream machine. 

Edited November 21, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rpn]

I call "garbage".   No there aren't going to be nudes commonly walking around Salt Lake City or other cities if this law is found to be unconstitutional as applied, or dismissed in this case specifically (which is should be --- they arrested the woman who was topless, but not the man who was just as topless, for conduct in their own home, under a complaint made by someone who wasn't there and who may not have been happy with the woman for other reasons.   The prosecutor should have declined prosecution in the first place.

[katherine the great]

7 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.

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...

 

 

 

I'm not sure its that simple. I think women started covering up when they moved into colder climates. Egyptians were extremely religious but they lived in a warm climate and many women routinely bared their breasts in public without shame. High status women often covered them but with almost transparent clothing. That aside, this particular incident never would have happened if the woman hadn't been charged with a CRIME for taking off her shirt in her own home. Ridiculous. I think it was inappropriate to do it in front of her stepchildren. But it should have been her husband, not the police who intervened.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

But it should have been her husband, not the police who intervened.

I think the husband was complicit. I am guessing the biological mother is influential in criminal charges as neither the husband or step-mother were competent or willing to provide a safe home and environment for her children.

[provoman]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

neither the husband or step-mother were competent or willing to provide a safe home and environment for her children.

What? What was "unsafe"?

 

[katherine the great]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think the husband was complicit. I am guessing the biological mother is influential in criminal charges as neither the husband or step-mother were competent or willing to provide a safe home and environment for her children.

Safe? I had a few surprise glimpses of breast and booty growing up in an active, normal home. I never considered myself unsafe. The mother did not report this. She was unhappy about it but admits that she had mostly forgotten about it when she was approached later about a different matter. Stepmom wasn't parading around the house purposely like this or pole dancing in front of the children. She was just finishing up her work when the children ran down the stairs and saw her. Her behavior was certainly not exemplary but I really don't consider it unsafe. I think its absurd that she was charged with lewd conduct. Insensitive and a bit immature, yes but hardly lewd. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I personally saw both of her unclothed breasts.

Yeah but who's counting?  Sure it wasn't just one?  You seem to have remembered the story well.

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

What? What was "unsafe"?

You’ll have to ask the kids why they felt violated enough to file charges.   If I was in their position, I could understand why I might feel violated and unprotected from lewdness in my home, and why I might feel unsafe to go home in fear of being exposed to indecent situations that would cause me to feel severe anxiety, embarrassment, discomfort, confusion, and perhaps even sexual arousal - which would cause me to feel terrible shame for feeling that way about my mother-in-law.  She is not ugly.  I could also understand why the biological mother would be irate and feel like it was an unsafe environment for her kids and was in violation of cultural values and standards and lewdness laws.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah but who's counting?  Sure it wasn't just one?  You seem to have remembered the story well.

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

You’ll have to ask the kids why they felt violated enough to file charges.

Do have a statement from the kids wherein they say they felt violated? 

And on what basis are you claiming the kids filed charges?

I read about this case a couple of months ago and I do not recall the kids saying they felt violated.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Insensitive and a bit immature, yes but hardly lewd. 

She knew the children were home and would be exposed.  She even took pride in what she did, exposing herself to 9, 10, and 13 year old boys.  She was trying to make a point by forcing her extreme feminist views on innocent children who had no one there to protect them and allow them to have a choice in the matter of what they want to be exposed to.  It was lewd to them...hence the charges.  Don’t their sensibilities matter?

The children, ages 13, 10 and 9, asked why Buchanan wasn’t wearing a shirt.

“Tilli explained that she considers herself a feminist and she wanted to make a point that everybody should be fine with walking around their house or elsewhere with skin showing,” her attorneys argued in court filings earlier this year”

 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

Do have a statement from the kids wherein they say they felt violated? 

And on what basis are you claiming the kids filed charges?

I read about this case a couple of months ago and I do not recall the kids saying they felt violated.

I thought I read in the article that the kids filed charges, I am mistaken.

I still stand by what I said about why it would be an unsafe environment for young children and a violation of Utah law.  It is not a question, or even refuted, that she violated the children’s protected rights surrounding Utah lewdness laws, what is in question is if those laws are constitutional.

[katherine the great]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

“Tilli explained that she considers herself a feminist and she wanted to make a point that everybody should be fine with walking around their house or elsewhere with skin showing,” her attorneys argued in court filings earlier this year”

 

I still don't consider it lewd conduct. It was not sexual in nature.  Insensitive and immature but not lewd.

[pogi]

Just now, katherine the great said:

I still don't consider it lewd conduct. It was not sexual in nature.  Insensitive and immature but not lewd.

Utah law does.  Again, not even her  attorneys refute that it violated Utah lewdness laws - their argument is that it is not fair because their father had his shirt off too...wow.