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

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. My wife and I have a straggler (a one year old, the next youngest is 9). Well the nine year old has no problem coming of his own volition and hopping in when either my wife or I are bathing with the baby. Apparently though I should be worried about going to jail? My older sons all appreciate their privacy and we give it to them, but they have certainly seen their share of breasts over the last year due to breastfeeding. The 15 year old boys just look the other way. Somehow I just don’t see how seeing breasts functioning naturally can be scarring in anyway unless you were raised to see them as such. If this is the case, seems to me it’s you that needs to change. 
 

Non sexual nudity is only an issue if you make it to be. And that starts with the home.

 

We did that as well!  My oldest two are almost 15 and 17 and my youngest two are 5 and 6.  We focus on privacy and not running round naked right now (thankfully only an issue for the youngest two) but we also try to treat naked bodies as normal and not shameful, especially when around people of the same sex.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

People who want women to be able to walk around bare-chested could argue the same things though.  That all that they are trying to accomplish is to put a stop to women's oppression, to make room for our evolving culture, and make sure that women are being treated according to the 'larger context of the constitution.'  

Yes, they can make that argument, and we will probably see these types of cases in the Supreme Court eventually, to decide on constitutionality.  If culture in the US has swung that far left (I don't think the majority of Supreme Court judges are there yet), this may very well be a thing.  But until then, States decide.  Knowing Utah culture, I doubt we will see that happening here.  But we might have a liberal judge seeing this case, and may surprise me.  If the law is found to be unconstitutional, our dominant culture and people will fight it all the way to the top - no doubt about that.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We did that as well!  My oldest two are almost 15 and 17 and my youngest two are 5 and 6.  We focus on privacy and not running round naked right now (thankfully only an issue for the youngest two) but we also try to treat naked bodies as normal and not shameful, especially when around people of the same sex.

That is a healthy way to teach children, and that is how I will raise my kids too.  I think most in our culture view our bodies that way.  But no way in hell am I going to teach my daughter that it is OK to walk around topless in public (mostly for her own safety), and because it is entirely culturally insensitive.  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. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, they can make that argument, and we will probably see these types of cases in the Supreme Court eventually, to decide on constitutionality.  If culture in the US has swung that far left (I don't think the majority of Supreme Court judges are there yet), this may very well be a thing.  But until then, States decide.  Knowing Utah culture, I doubt we will see that happening here.  But we might have a liberal judge seeing this case, and may surprise me.  If the law is found to be unconstitutional, our dominant culture and people will fight it all the way to the top - no doubt about that.

But as we've discussed earlier, state culture cannot supersede the constitution, so if a judge rules that it is unconstitutional to require women to cover their chests while men don't have to, then the culture of Utah (much like the culture of Mississippi during the 1960s) doesn't matter.  

State culture does not trump the constitution, which is something that Mississippi learned when their dominate culture fought against civil rights all the way to the top and still lost.   

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is a healthy way to teach children, and that is how I will raise my kids too.  I think most in our culture view our bodies that way.  But no way in hell am I going to teach my daughter that it is OK to walk around topless in public (mostly for her own safety), and because it is entirely culturally insensitive.  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. 

I think you have a valid opinion and I agree with it for the most part.  But, this issue isn't about our opinions or our beliefs, it's about what is legal and (most importantly) why.  Our beliefs are largely irrelevant to the law.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But as we've discussed earlier, state culture cannot supersede the constitution, so if a judge rules that it is unconstitutional to require women to cover their chests while men don't have to, then the culture of Utah (much like the culture of Mississippi during the 1960s) doesn't matter.  

State culture does not trump the constitution, which is something that Mississippi learned when their dominate culture fought against civil rights all the way to the top and still lost.   

I'm not disagreeing.   My point is that the Supreme Court has not ruled it to be unconstitutional.  So Utah will fight it all the way to the top.  If we lose, we lose and we are subject to the larger context of cultural interpretations of the constitution.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you have a valid opinion and I agree with it for the most part.  But, this issue isn't about our opinions or our beliefs, it's about what is legal and (most importantly) why.  Our beliefs are largely irrelevant to the law.

We live in the United States of America, our beliefs are entirely relevant to the law.  We vote. The constitution was set up to let the voice of the people have a say.  The government is by us and for us and of us, of course our beliefs are relevant.   This is not a dictatorship.  

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

We live in the United States of America, our beliefs are entirely relevant to the law.  We vote. The constitution was set up to let the voice of the people have a say.  The government is by us and for us and of us, of course our beliefs are relevant.   This is not a dictatorship.  

Unless what the people vote for is unconstitutional.  The founding fathers purposefully set us up as a democratic republic and not a democracy because they did not want the beliefs of the majority (which is another term for mob rule) to have all the power.  

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

Their argument is not that it is ok because she was in a private home. The argument is that the law "treats men and women differently for the same conduct of baring their chests" and is therefore unconstitutional.  If it is found to be unconstitutional in the home, then it is unconstitutional outside the home for the same reason, regardless of the specific conditions of this particular case.  It will have far reaching impact if they win. 

Quote

Farrell, the ACLU attorney, argued the Utah law violates Buchanan’s 14th Amendment right to equal protection. She argued it is similar to an ordinance in Fort Collins, Colorado, that was found unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The city had banned women but not men from being topless in public.

 

So, if chests are chests, and it turns out that it is impermissible to discriminate based on sex, then how would such a ruling impact other laws - say, for example, sexual assault laws which make it a crime to touch a woman's chest while treating the exact same conduct differently when it's done to a man? 

 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not disagreeing.   My point is that the Supreme Court has not ruled it to be unconstitutional.  So Utah will fight it all the way to the top.  If we lose, we lose and we are subject to the larger context of cultural interpretations of the constitution.

They might fight it.  That remains to be seen.  

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Unless what the people vote for is unconstitutional.  The founding fathers purposefully set us up as a democratic republic and not a democracy because they did not want the beliefs of the majority (which is another term for mob rule) to have all the power.  

The constitution is not some static document.  It is entirely amendable as culture evolves. Constitutional rulings can and have been reversed which demonstrates that the interpretation of the constitution itself is in flux according to culture.  We have the power to put people in office to change the constitution. If culture changes enough, culture gets its way.  We have seen this over, and over, and over again.  That is the beauty of it.  We are the people and we have power.  

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, if chests are chests, and it turns out that it is impermissible to discriminate based on sex, then how would such a ruling impact other laws - say, for example, sexual assault laws which make it a crime to touch a woman's chest while treating the exact same conduct differently when it's done to a man? 

 

Excellent point!  I guess women need to think carefully if equality in everything is what they really, really want.   

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

The constitution is not some static document.  It is entirely amendable as culture evolves. Constitutional rulings can and have been reversed which demonstrates that the interpretation of the constitution itself is in flux according to culture.  We have the power to put people in office to change the constitution. If culture changes enough, culture gets its way.  We have seen this over, and over, and over again.  That is the beauty of it.  We are the people and we have power.  

Definitely, but none of that means that our beliefs/personal culture is what determines what should be legal or not.  We can again look to the south in the 1960s as a good example of that.  The south was the people, yet in the end they did not have the power.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They might fight it.  That remains to be seen.  

I think it is all but certain.  This is Utah after all!  Our culture 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. 

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Definitely, but none of that means that our beliefs/personal culture is what determines what should be legal or not.  We can again look to the south in the 1960s as a good example of that.  The south was the people, yet in the end they did not have the power.

The South didn't have the dominant culture, or they would have had their way.  Laws and practices simply would not have changed without a cultural uprising.  Culture changed the law, not the other way around. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[provoman]

39 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, if chests are chests, and it turns out that it is impermissible to discriminate based on sex, then how would such a ruling impact other laws - say, for example, sexual assault laws which make it a crime to touch a woman's chest while treating the exact same conduct differently when it's done to a man? 

 

In the initial articles on this case the City Attorney argued that we need gender based laws to punish those who touch  a females chest for gratification.

That argument (the State need only criminalize molesting a female chest), indicates that the State does not have a problem with young boys chest being molested.

[RevTestament]

On 11/20/2019 at 1:41 PM, 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.  

 

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

[pogi]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The 15 year old boys just look the other way. Somehow I just don’t see how seeing breasts functioning naturally can be scarring in anyway unless you were raised to see them as such. If this is the case, seems to me it’s you that needs to change. 

Let's say you took on a very attractive (or not) new 23 year old wife.  You don't think your 15 year old boy would feel terribly uncomfortable in his home if she walked around topless all the time?  If he wasn't attracted to her, you don't think he would feel terribly uncomfortable and icky and not want to see it?  If he was attracted, you don't think that even in unsexual settings, he wouldn't be affected sexually?  You don't think that could be terribly painful for a 15 year old boy to go through the confusion, guilt, and shame of being turned-on by his own MIL and not know what to do because she is always naked?  Perhaps he just needs to change, right (let’s blame/shame him!)? Or, perhaps you just raised him wrong?  Because the rest of society has no influence on his perceptions of the female breast, right?

Seeing even your own biological mother breastfeed, or a glimpse in the shower, or changing is one thing, but you can't tell me that given our culture you wouldn't have felt so offended if your own mother intentionally exposed herself around the house topless all the time.  I love my mom, but NO!!!  Even with my own mother that would be almost unbearably uncomfortable for me to have her pretend like nothing is wrong about it given our culture.  Affront and alarm - all the way!  Let's get real here.  Most people would be offended in Utah, even girls.  

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Non sexual nudity is only an issue if you make it to be. 

Very true.  You know what else is also true?  Sexual nudity is only an issue if your culture makes it to be. Don't you think we should respect those cultural sensibilities?  

What you say is true, but tell that to a teenager, in his sexual prime, who has been raised in today's culture to perceive the female breast a certain way.  That brain wiring that media industries have spent billions to create, and that religion has spent millennia to create, don't just go away because you say "it is only an issue if you make it to be."  We are our culture. We don't get to choose our environmental influences that make us who we are. You can't just say "think differently" as if it is that easy. 

Perceiving the female breast that way is as old as the Bible...in fact it has been canonized!

"Your two breasts are like two fawn, twins of a gazelle, that graze among the lilies" (Songs of Solomon)

"Your statrue is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.  I said, "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit."  May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine..." (Songs of Solomon)

"a lovely deer, a graceful doe.  Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love." (Proverbs)

Such deep cultural perceptions don't change overnight because you say, "it's only an issue if you make it to be." 

You can't tell a teenager that breasts are sexual in ____ context, but are not sexual in _____ context and expect him not to be aroused in almost all contexts. 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The South didn't have the dominant culture, or they would have had their way.  Laws and practices simply would not have changed without a cultural uprising.  Culture changed the law, not the other way around. 

They did in the south, where civil rights activists were killed and/or jailed by authorities for speaking out.  In the south, the law changed the culture but it's been a long process.  Without the law there is no evidence that the change in culture would have happened as it did.  The law forced their hands, eventually.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They did in the south, where civil rights activists were killed and/or jailed by authorities for speaking out.  In the south, the law changed the culture but it's been a long process.  Without the law there is no evidence that the change in culture would have happened as it did.  The law forced their hands, eventually.

It was found unconstitutional.  I'm not understanding your point.  The larger culture won, and that is what I have been saying the whole time.  I have always said, local cultures are allowed to influence local law, so long as that law is found to be acceptable in the larger cultural context of the constitution.  It is all culturally based. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[Anonymous Mormon]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. My wife and I have a straggler (a one year old, the next youngest is 9). Well the nine year old has no problem coming of his own volition and hopping in when either my wife or I are bathing with the baby. Apparently though I should be worried about going to jail? My older sons all appreciate their privacy and we give it to them, but they have certainly seen their share of breasts over the last year due to breastfeeding. The 15 year old boys just look the other way. Somehow I just don’t see how seeing breasts functioning naturally can be scarring in anyway unless you were raised to see them as such. If this is the case, seems to me it’s you that needs to change. 
 

Non sexual nudity is only an issue if you make it to be. And that starts with the home.

 

I completely agree with the premise. However, it's a slippery slope.

For example, can you define the difference in your terminology between sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity? I am guessing that the same body parts your wife nurses the baby with that are not sexual now, were at some point sexual in the earlier baby making process. So obviously those parts of the body can be both. It is likely in the eye of the beholder.

What about the recent case of the male foster parent who got in trouble for walking around his house naked and encouraging his foster daughter to do the same. He was in his own home and there was no physical contact. Would that have been an okay situation if he wore a speedo all day instead?

And if it all starts at home, then how do we handle different homes that do sexualize nudity? I think most homes do sexualize all nudity here in the US since most media that is consumed in the home sexualizes nudity and I would venture to guess that most people learn about sex from the media.

Because it is a slippery slope, I don't think it's wrong to keep the community standards in place as guidelines for all to follow. 

[pogi]

Nevermind 

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let's say you took on a very attractive (or not) new 23 year old wife.  You don't think your 15 year old boy would feel terribly uncomfortable in his home if she walked around topless all the time?  If he wasn't attracted to her, you don't think he would feel terribly uncomfortable and icky and not want to see it?  If he was attracted, you don't think that even in unsexual settings, he wouldn't be affected sexually?  You don't think that could be terribly painful for a 15 year old boy to go through the confusion, guilt, and shame of being turned-on by his own MIL and not know what to do because she is always naked?  Perhaps he just needs to change, right (let’s blame/shame him!)? Or, perhaps you just raised him wrong?  Because the rest of society has no influence on his perceptions of the female breast, right?

Swap all the genders in your scenario. Mom married a hot 23 year old dude that walks around with his shirt off. Or he’s an “uggo” with a huge pot belly and man boobs. Somehow we get by in this society without a law regarding this. And society totally sexualizes men’s chests all the time. 

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Very true.  You know what else is also true?  Sexual nudity is only an issue if your culture makes it to be. Don't you think we should respect those cultural sensibilities?  
 

CFR. I’ve never heard of this and heard much evidence to the contrary. 

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

What you say is true, but tell that to a teenager, in his sexual prime, who has been raised in today's culture to perceive the female breast a certain way.  That brain wiring that media industries have spent billions to create, and that religion has spent millennia to create, don't just go away because you say "it is only an issue if you make it to be."  We are our culture. We don't get to choose our environmental influences that make us who we are. You can't just say "think differently" as if it is that easy.

Interestingly my wife and I tried out a nude beach a couple years back. I was raised by very very prudish parents and currently live in a very conservative area. I was actually surprised by how non-sexual the entire experience was. From start to finish. You should try it. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I think it is all but certain.  This is Utah after all!  Our culture 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. 

I think it might happen but I don't think it's all but certain because there has already been a federal ruling on it--it's currently legal in Utah--and Utah could decide that it's not worth the cost of trying to change that.  Also, even if they did decide to fight it, if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, or agreed with the lower court, then the current Federal ruling would stand and there would be nothing that Utah could do about it.  

We really don't have much power at all on this. 

Quote

 

A federal court ruling over a ban on women going topless in public has essentially made it legal for women to go topless in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma, according to news outlets.

CBS affiliate KUTV reports that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is over those six states, struck down a topless ban in Ft. Collins, Colo. after two women sued the city for the right to go topless in public.

 

 

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Swap all the genders in your scenario. Mom married a hot 23 year old dude that walks around with his shirt off. Or he’s an “uggo” with a huge pot belly and man boobs. Somehow we get by in this society without a law regarding this. And society totally sexualizes men’s chests all the time. 

Are you going to address anything I said?

Culturally, a man's nipple is not considered lewd, or even sexually attractive.  You don't here women freaking out, "oh I saw his nipple!" in "wardrobe malfunctions".  Even in the highly conservative church!  See the pics of the BYU sports team posted earlier.  The male breast is no where NEAR as culturally powerful/influential as the female breast.  Different galaxies!

 I will have to respond to the rest later.

Edited November 22, 2019 by pogi