Print Page | Close Window

Battle of the Breasts

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: GENERAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Women's History
Forum Description: Discuss women in history and other historical topics from a feminine perspective!
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=124502
Printed Date: 14 Dec 2019 at 22:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Battle of the Breasts
Posted By: Carcharodon
Subject: Battle of the Breasts
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 21:21
Do not know if this thread belongs here but I will try:
 
In the year 2007 two young girls entered a bathhouse in the Swedish town of Uppsala. They went out in to the hall, where the pool is, topless and some guard told them that it was forbidden to go topless in the the big hall. After some arguments they left the bathhouse. After a while they filed a complaint to the  JAMO (Jamstalldhetsombudsmannen) an oficial whos task it is to fight different forms of diskrimination in Sweden. JAMO did not take up the case, but it lead to a lot of writings in the press and to a sort of women movement claiming the right to go topless in public baths. These women claim that if men has the right to go barebreasted than so would also women, otherwise it is diskrimination and against equality between the sexes. Actions have since the incident in Uppsala also taken place in other cities, where women have entered bathouses topless just to protest against what they see as discrimination.
 
So what is your opinion about these things? Maybe not an important issue in woman history of equality but rather amuzing.



Replies:
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 21:30
Its amusing, certainly.

I feel the woman's rights movement should really consider picking up their P45s. Every so often they come out with some nonsense such as 'positive discrimination' or 'women's days'. Essentially they are moving the movement away from equality to another, more dangerous breed of entitlement based subservience. I don't think they've learnt anything from the experience of the Civil Rights movement in the States. That movement moved sharply away from seeking equality to seeking entitlements, which did little to calm the racial tensions in that country. Just look at how their urban landscape changed in the last 40 years and examine how so many American cities turned into crime ridden ghettoes. Not that the same thing is going to happen with womens rights movements (Can you imagine exclusively female ghettoes???) but they are trying to take women as a whole down a path that they don't have the representation for. There is a reason why so many 21st century women, usually educated women, try to distance themselves from the feminist movement.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 21:40
My opinion is that women, who have been given breasts of an especially enlarged type which are considered an especially sexual part of the body, should recognise that most in the community consider this part of the body a private area as much as a person's rear or their genitals.

If enough women wish to go to a sauna bare breasted, then a commercially minded individual should be free to establish such a sauna where it is their explicit policy that women may go there bare breasted. If the women do not mind the many stares and uncomfortable sexual advances of men in such a sauna, then fine.

However, they should not attempt to impose their individual interpretations of morality on the community at large, who do consider a woman's breasts to be an especially erotic part of the body and therefore should be properly concealed when in a public place.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 21:41
I agree with Parnell.

I'll add to that there seems to be confusion about what sex discrimination actually is now. Wearing clothes is not discrimination (I seriously can't believe I just wrote that sentence). I don't know how feminist movements got the idea that the more clothes you wear is proportional to the more you are oppressed, but it certainly isn't true.
In my experience feminists who push that idea (usually alongside career orientated life) are the number one oppressive social pressure for modern young women.


PS. I agree with CXI as well.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 21:58
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Its amusing, certainly.

 I don't think they've learnt anything from the experience of the Civil Rights movement in the States. That movement moved sharply away from seeking equality to seeking entitlements, which did little to calm the racial tensions in that country. Just look at how their urban landscape changed in the last 40 years and examine how so many American cities turned into crime ridden ghettoes.
 
Is there no other causes to increased criminality and formation of ghettos than the Civil Rights movement? Has it not to do with economic inbalancies and inequality in the American society? And powerty and criminality is seen in several groups.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 22:06
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I agree with Parnell.

I'll add to that there seems to be confusion about what sex discrimination actually is now. Wearing clothes is not discrimination (I seriously can't believe I just wrote that sentence). I don't know how feminist movements got the idea that the more clothes you wear is proportional to the more you are oppressed, but it certainly isn't true.
In my experience feminists who push that idea (usually alongside career orientated life) are the number one oppressive social pressure for modern young women.
PS. I agree with CXI as well.
 
The matter of clothes seem always be in the discussion. For example, here in Sweden (and in other European countries as France and Denmark) the muslim veil has came into focus when discussing muslims and muslim immigrants. The veil is seen as a symbol of opression against women and a symbol of patriarchal power structures. So there has been a lot of discussions to forbid the veil for girls under the age of 15 or to ban it in schools. At the same time religious freedom is inscribed in the law so it has become a rather tricky question. 
Some women, engaged in womens lib movements see the matter of clothes as an expression of patriarchal ways of controlling women, their bodies and their sexuality.
 


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 22:29
I agree with Constantine. That part of the body is considered private while the same area on men is not. However, to see it from another point of view, why should we be ashamed of our body? The abnormal thing is that we're ashamed not that some decide to swim naked.

If some people wish to go naked then it is ok by me.

Now, if private areas of the body (practically speaking, those who trigger sexual attention whether some like it or not) are allowed in public, what would happen if one of these ladies saw an old man getting his jumbo erected because of the view? Knowing that feminist movements in Sweden can be less moderate, such a scenario would raise many reactions towards men that would not control their fellas.

Generally, i do not take this action seriously because it is for the sake of political correctness within feminist movements in Sweden. If they did it because they believed that "people should not be ashamed of their bodies" then they would have my full support and admiration.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 22:48
So, the kernel of these women's argument is that men can show that area of their bodies, but women can't. Therefore, they accept that exposure of male or female genetalia in such a public place would be wrong, as neither has the right to do so. Therefore, they reject the assertion that the female breast constitutes private parts. I am unsure of the law in Sweden, but surely this comes down to indecent exposure? It is ok for a female to expose her breast(s) when breast feeding in public, ok to go topless on a beach, as there is a reasonable expectation that they will be seen, and ok to go topless in their own back garden, so long as they are not imposing themselves on the common viewpoint of others. The problem is, the nudity itself is not a crime, per se, it is the impact the nudity has on others that could make it so. If someone indicates that they are genuinely insulted by the nudity of others, and had no oppurtunity to expect or avoid the interaction, then the nude can be arrested for indecent exposure. So, all in all, these women can, in my view, go topless in a public bath, so long as all those who would be expected to use this space have a reasonable knowledge of what they might and might not see. If they are fully aware of this, then they do not have to attend, and can't complain about indecency. If the owner decides that these people are harming his business or alienating his customers, a policy statement outlining the rules of his establishment can be erected and thus the problem would not arise. A statuatory right to nudity is an impossibilty, i'm afraid.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 22:55
Very good points Dolphin.

-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 22:55
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

INow, if private areas of the body (practically speaking, those who trigger sexual attention whether some like it or not) are allowed in public, what would happen if one of these ladies saw an old man getting his jumbo erected because of the view? Knowing that feminist movements in Sweden can be less moderate, such a scenario would raise many reactions towards men that would not control their fellas.
 
Maybe some of these women would say as one well known women lib spokes(wo)man, Valerie Solana, wrote about men: To call a man an animal is to flatter him: he is a machine, a walking dildo, a biological accident.
 
Hmmm, I wonder how they would feel if there were no men?


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 23:04
Ok, such statements are insane. That is equal to racism like many other things. I don't think we should take such women as an example nor do i think that feminists around the world want to be related to miss Valerie Solana.

Now here's what i found in an interview of the members in http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fritt-fram-for-bara-brost-i-simhall-1.897683 - DN.Se

"Det ska inte uppfattas som sexuellt att kvinnor går barbröstade i simhallen, det är inte en sexuell situation, säger Sanna Ferm."

"The fact that women walk around topless in swimming pools, shall not be regarded sexual, it is not a sexual situation".

Now, that is really naive and irresponsible to say. In an ideal world things would be like that or better said in an age when it is no longer regarded sexual you can make such a statement. The reality now is different and before things can take full effect many many many people have to change.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 23:06
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Its amusing, certainly.

 I don't think they've learnt anything from the experience of the Civil Rights movement in the States. That movement moved sharply away from seeking equality to seeking entitlements, which did little to calm the racial tensions in that country. Just look at how their urban landscape changed in the last 40 years and examine how so many American cities turned into crime ridden ghettoes.
 
Is there no other causes to increased criminality and formation of ghettos than the Civil Rights movement? Has it not to do with economic inbalancies and inequality in the American society? And powerty and criminality is seen in several groups.


Of course, perhaps I didn't put my point across too well. What I was trying to portray was that the Civil Rights movement took a move away from the persuit of equality, particularly following MLK's death, to a persuit of entitlements. The ghettoes are only roughly related to that, the point I was trying to make was that the Civil Rights movement eventually did achieve legal equality if not cultural equality, but the persuit of entitlements served only to alienate American whites even further and deeply embed racial prejudice along cultural lines. The ghettoes, from a literal point of view, were a result of 'white flight' from the inner cities. Once Irish/Italian/Polish/Swedish etc. dominated districts became Black/Hispanic/Asian dominated areas in the space of a decade. Of course there is much more to this development than the failures of the Civil Rights movement, but I do find it somewhat amusing that the feminist movement fails to recognise the same mistakes that the American Civil Rights groups made. (And still make)


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 23:21
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Ok, such statements are insane. That is equal to racism like many other things. I don't think we should take such women as an example nor do i think that feminists around the world want to be related to miss Valerie Solana.

Now here's what i found in an interview of the members in http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fritt-fram-for-bara-brost-i-simhall-1.897683 - DN.Se

"Det ska inte uppfattas som sexuellt att kvinnor går barbröstade i simhallen, det är inte en sexuell situation, säger Sanna Ferm."

"The fact that women walk around topless in swimming pools, shall not be regarded sexual, it is not a sexual situation".

Now, that is really naive and irresponsible to say. In an ideal world things would be like that or better said in an age when it is no longer regarded sexual you can make such a statement. The reality now is different and before things can take full effect many many many people have to change.
 
I have heard some women say that they actually have the right to walk alone, half naked, through the town in the middle of the night without being harassed or being in danger of being raped. That, they say, is their right as citizens and as women. And as long as they cannot do that they are living in a patriarchal society, victims of the gender power structure (koensmaktsordningen).
 
And of course women should have the right to go topless, or even more to go alone through the city in the night, but still things are what they are. As you say, many people have to change first.
 


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2009 at 23:38
What if the scenario is a man walking naked?

a) Some women will curse him and who knows what they will say.
b) Some women may find him attractive and tell him some words of sexual content as well.

What does that tell a no-MAM member then? That we live in a matriarchical society? Wacko

Besides with that logic, some men that like unfortunately to terrorize women by swinging their "fella" would be justified somehow. They would say "if they can show them, we can show them". It is a wrong approach.

It is all about realism...People get fanatic and do not look at the root of the problem.

I really don't have anything against a society where walking naked is not bad.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 01:05

Well I guarantee one thing for you, obesity rates will really go down sharply in Sweden. Plus its good for business. All these women will eventually need plastic surgery to fix their boobs because of all the toplessness.

What is next for the women movment? women urinals?
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: egyptian goddess
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 01:29
hm. interesting thread so far. I had a full rebuttal to everything (since I thought it was time an actual chick contributed to this discussion) but unfortuntaley my internet went crazy and I lost it allOuch 
 
I will re-type it all up again (perhaps when I'm less fatigued and collected all my thoughts again), but so far on what I've seen- some of the comments made have been true, some false... some irrelevant to the point of offensive. So as one of the few girls on this site, I will contribute a full response to this very very soon. (I'm still really angry my previous post was lost though...argh!!!)


Posted By: Prince of Zeila
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 04:35
''Jamstalldhetsombudsmannen''
 
Woah! that's a mouthful! What's the longest Swedish word?


-------------


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 05:39
We have some very construed words but if one still will be able to say them fluently words like jamstalldhetsombudsmannen or diskrimineringsombudsmannen is among the longest still managable.
 
diskrimineringsombudsmannen is an oficial that fights discrimination of different kind.


Posted By: Prince of Zeila
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 06:54
^ThanksSmile

-------------


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2009 at 07:28
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
I have heard some women say that they actually have the right to walk alone, half naked, through the town in the middle of the night without being harassed or being in danger of being raped. That, they say, is their right as citizens and as women. And as long as they cannot do that they are living in a patriarchal society, victims of the gender power structure (koensmaktsordningen).
 
 
Well, if a person is stupid enough she can say any sort of silly thing. The whole topless affair was ridiculous, and nobody really cares about these fanatics.
 
 



Posted By: Jeannie
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2009 at 03:08
Of course, imposing dress requirements on one class of citizen and not on others is discriminatory. And requiring that women wear enveloping clothing such as a burqa (or requiring subservient behaviors such as keeping their eyes lowered in public) is discriminatory. There is CERTAINLY a corollary between requiring restrictive clothing and discrimination against women.

Women's breasts are enlarged for feeding of the young. They are not genitalia.

For years, breasts have been routinely bared on many beaches and it does not mean women are routinely attacked.  Women's breasts have been routinely bared in many cultures. Women being attacked has more to do with that being the societal norm and accepted behavior than sexuality. Anyone who says that women are attacked or abused because of their clothing (or lack of it) needs to look to themselves and their attitudes toward women and not to women's behaviors.  I've known of cases of habitted nuns being raped.

Most feminists consider going topless too minor to fight rather than not discriminatory. There are simply more important issues in the world. However, any woman who is aware enough to act against such constraints certainly has my understanding.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I agree with Parnell.

I'll add to that there seems to be confusion about what sex discrimination actually is now. Wearing clothes is not discrimination (I seriously can't believe I just wrote that sentence). I don't know how feminist movements got the idea that the more clothes you wear is proportional to the more you are oppressed, but it certainly isn't true.
In my experience feminists who push that idea (usually alongside career orientated life) are the number one oppressive social pressure for modern young women.


PS. I agree with CXI as well.


Posted By: gruvawn
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 09:27
restrictive clothing?

my dad has always said that "the right to swing your fist in the air ends at the tip of my nose". thus, a woman's right to flop out her hooters ends at my visual range!

why is nuclear bomb testing bad? because atoms are evil? because... nuclear reactions are evil? no, nuclear testing is bad because of the effect it has on the environment. boobs can cause traffic accidents even when they're bundled up against the cold, and if they were all freed all of a sudden like so many balloons at a gas station grand opening then the whole world would come to a 'screeching' halt!


-------------
don't believe everything you think. : )


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 10:09
From a practical POV, seeing as many would find barebreasted women uhm...visually imposing? It would make sense to have some sort of dress code that respects the sensibilities of most people, even though I don't understand why people find it offensive in a public bath but not on beaches. 

However in principle I think our social conditioning towards shame of our bodies and covering up certain parts that are considered less "pure" is psychologically destructive, and I'm quite pleased with the increasing tendency towards social acceptance for nudity in many parts of the world. Our innocence may have been lost at some poit, but I think it's possible to reclaim it.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 20:23
Originally posted by gruvawn gruvawn wrote:

restrictive clothing?

my dad has always said that "the right to swing your fist in the air ends at the tip of my nose". thus, a woman's right to flop out her hooters ends at my visual range!

why is nuclear bomb testing bad? because atoms are evil? because... nuclear reactions are evil? no, nuclear testing is bad because of the effect it has on the environment. boobs can cause traffic accidents even when they're bundled up against the cold, and if they were all freed all of a sudden like so many balloons at a gas station grand opening then the whole world would come to a 'screeching' halt!


Well, if we should ban everything that some people find visually offensive or challenging than we must ban much of the public art, we must forbid ugly buildings (that mean we must tear down some towns or cities completely) and other ugly things. Of course we must forbid public advertisement since it can disturb some peoples view of the world (especially those that find such expressions of raw capitalism disturbing). The list can go on and on. We live in a world of visual impressions and to single out the human body as a particularly offensive thing and propose that it should be hidden because someone can be disturbed by it is rather illogical. Such thinking is actually derived from paranoid consepts from old religions with a hostile attitude towards sexuality and nudity. One can hope that we soon shall be able to shake of such old delusions.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 21:00
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Well, if we should ban everything that some people find visually offensive...


No one is arguing that, but we are arguing there should be prohibitions on things most people find visually offensive.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 23:49
To find a persons body visually offensive is in a way to show contempt for that person, after all it is how he/she really looks. Maybe it is time that we liberate ourself from the grip of old religions that in their core are hostile against sexuality and even to humanity itself.


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2010 at 23:53
Those darn religions are so against sex. Now if "We" could only stop them from reproducing. Those flocks are getting rather large.

Carch, speak for yourself my man. Pluralizing your beliefs is stretching it a bit. Change the 'we' to 'my next time and we will know your insecurities a lot better. Write a book too; "The World According to Carch". Smile I would visit that world. Beautiful ladies with no tops prancing about lusting after the sekoman. Wake me when my dream is over please.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 00:22
Unfortunately so many people in the world today are completely caught up in religious prejudice and superstitious beliefs that one really has to call for a liberation of the many.
 
But some people in the world has still a more relaxed view of their bodies and are able to go around more or less naked. If they are allowed.


Posted By: Dawn-
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 01:52
Did you know that in Canada it is legal for a woman to go topless down the street or anywhere else a man can go without a top?  In the mid  90's the laws were tested in court and overturned. Now did this create a mass of topless women walking about - no. It just faded into the background and life went on.  Lots of times - people want what they can't have. Once they get it it becomes unimportant and life goes on.  The girls in the bath house are just after publicity.   


Posted By: gruvawn
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 03:22
i didnt say to ban anything. there are nude beaches and other places for baring your assets to the world. i didnt say anything about religion. not wanting to see your pink bits, is like not wanting you to spam my email.

apparently the point was missed in my first post that its the effect you have on other people that is the difference. you cant walk down the street naked and be offended if some man looks at you the wrong way! you have to choose one or the other. walking fully clothed down the street and getting oogled then your righteous indignation is justified. what if i want to walk down the street yelling obscenities, or racial epithets or whatever it is you personally find inappropriate, it would make you mad, right? thats the effect. i can do that somewhere else and exercise my freedom. if i do that in front of your house do you have a right to ask me to leave? do i have a right to tell you to cover you windows or turn up your stereo so you wont hear me? you're so concerned about you own rights that you'll laugh triumphantly watching everyone elses rights get trampled! i support your right to be nude somewhere, but you dont support my right not to be there!

"the right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it"- gk chesterton.



-------------
don't believe everything you think. : )


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 06:00
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Our innocence may have been lost at some poit, but I think it's possible to reclaim it.
Proverbially and biblically surely our innocence was lost when we began to cover our bodies?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 06:01
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

To find a persons body visually offensive is in a way to show contempt for that person, after all it is how he/she really looks. Maybe it is time that we liberate ourself from the grip of old religions that in their core are hostile against sexuality and even to humanity itself.
 
The bodies most people are ashamed of are their own.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 08:15
Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

To find a persons body visually offensive is in a way to show contempt for that person, after all it is how he/she really looks.


Not really. It just shows disapproval for a behaviour (not respecting common social norms), and that's fine.

Originally posted by Carch Carch wrote:

Maybe it is time that we liberate ourself from the grip of old religions that in their core are hostile against sexuality and even to humanity itself.


What makes you think that social norms like these MUST come from religion?

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

The bodies most people are ashamed of are their own.


Very true.


Posted By: gruvawn
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 10:57
when a man sees a topless/naked woman, who thinks he can control his reaction? notice i did not say action, but reaction. we all know what that reaction is, even if he stops his mind afterward he has been violated mentally because this reaction was thrust upon him without his consent! if i post a link but dont say what it is or lie, and you click on it and see a picture of my genitalia or even my man boobs then i would get banned and rightly so. whats the difference in doing it in person on a public street? there is a COC in life, and those who violate it shouldn't be surprised if they get "banned"!

so who is it that doesn't want you to see topless women on the street? it's you're wife! who is it that wants your wife to go around topless in public? everyone but you!

i can already hear it, "but it's natural", where's a tree to hug when i need one? defecation is natural too, do you want someone doing that on the public sidewalk in front of your business?

restrictive clothing? there is no law that states women have to wear something tight, form fitting or even a bra. oh please, women don't dress up for men anyway, they dress up for other women! at home a woman will kick back in sweats with her hair in a ponytail, but if "want to go out to eat honey?", "sure, just let me put on my face and get dressed"! vanity, thy name is woman! a woman who is topless in public, does it for the reaction, not in spite of it.

someone earlier implied that men can go where ever they want while shirtless. that's not true. there are almost as many "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs in the usa as men's room signs. every restaurant, or store of any kind has one on the front door. they're every where else too. men who run around without a shirt aren't idolized for it by anyone! if i see a guy without a shirt, i wonder what hay wagon he just fell off of.

a friend of mine is a flasher. he was going to retire but with the bad economy, he decided to stick it out another year!

see! public nudity is funny, not cultured!


-------------
don't believe everything you think. : )


Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 14:38
Parnell, The Civil Rights movement's swing to entitlement must be measured against the background of LBJ's Great Society, itself an outgrowth of the FDR years, when big government was seen as the solution to the nation's ills. (Which in some cases, it was.)

As for the direction of this thread itself, I believe that attitudes towards full or partial public nudity arise from each society. When in Rome... etc. Women from the Highland tribes of Southeast Asia routinely went about bare-breasted in my youth. But whenever they came in contact with Americans, they covered up. I asked several of my tribal friends which aspect of a woman they found most erotic, and they tended to hips and eyes. When asked about sucking on a woman's breasts, their reply was: 'Who steals milk from their own child?" It was considered unmanly. One advantage to living adjacent to them was the we were soon disabused of the illusion that all breasts were equally attractive. They, specifically the Rhade and Jarai, were a matriarchal, matrilineal, and matrilocal society where the clan lands were owned by the oldest woman, or 'Po Lan'. Men owned their clothes, tools, and weapons, and little else. Yet there were clear divisions of labor, and village chiefs were invariably men, as were most sorcerers. War and hunting were male activities. Their unwelcome neighbors, the Vietnamese, were extremely puritanical (which was no impediment to the Vietnamese birth rate). With the defeat of the nationalists in 1975, the new government decreed that clan longhouses were forbidden, and that Highland dress would have to conform to Vietnamese standards of decency. At least it was done intelligently. Tribal patterned cloth was used for fashioning blouses, and male loincloths were manufactured complete with front and back flaps resembling those of the American Indians. They were partially successful. The great majority of men no longer know how to tie a loincloth, hanging both flaps to the front and right side, and leaving a sumo wrestler style twist up the cleave of the buttocks. Yet on a bus trip from Ban Me Thuot to Dalat last year, I spotted a young tribal woman walking down the road proudly bare-chested. Seeing the bus approach, a female Vietnamese shopkeeper ran out to throw a towel across her chest just as the bus caught up with her, much to the disappointment of the (mostly Vietnamese) male passengers. In Europe, I used to jog along a beach near Montpellier when visiting friends. A few minutes from the car park it was topless, and a few minutes past that it was nude. No one seemed terribly concerned. I found the same attitude and condition one warm afternoon just past the Englischer Teagarten in Munich where the Issar river (I presume) ran through it. There must have been several thousand naked people lounging on the grass, swimming in the river, playing frisbee, and otherwise just enjoying themselves in the park. No one was even fornicating! For many Germans and French, public nudity seems normal in certain places and at certain times. It's not for me, nor would my wife be comfortable, but it seems to work very well for others. Why not merely let it be?

 




-------------
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 16:24
The thing is if women want to be topless, sure don't let me stop them.
Got a stressful lifestyle, need some eyecandy
 
The Fem movement lost what little credibility it had when it starts on such issues.


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 19:28
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

The thing is if women want to be topless, sure don't let me stop them.
Got a stressful lifestyle, need some eyecandy
 
The Fem movement lost what little credibility it had when it starts on such issues.
 
That's just the thing! The feminist movement doesn't even need to factor into this debate. I'm certainly no feminist but since I'm a male who hasn't been neutered by neither feminism nor religion I prefer women who make themselves sexually available to me - if only visually - and any man who argues in favour of covering up women, separating them from men or heightening their treshold for getting on their backs should have his penis revoked, as he clearly doesn't have much use for it.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 20:49
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

The thing is if women want to be topless, sure don't let me stop them.
Got a stressful lifestyle, need some eyecandy
 
The Fem movement lost what little credibility it had when it starts on such issues.
 
That's just the thing! The feminist movement doesn't even need to factor into this debate. I'm certainly no feminist but since I'm a male who hasn't been neutered by neither feminism nor religion I prefer women who make themselves sexually available to me - if only visually - and any man who argues in favour of covering up women, separating them from men or heightening their treshold for getting on their backs should have his penis revoked, as he clearly doesn't have much use for it.


Unless he plays outside the usual team, eh Regi Wink


Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 21:06
Depends on whether he is a good Christian and pefers to give rather than receive.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 21:09
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

  Not really. It just shows disapproval for a behaviour (not respecting common social norms), and that's fine.
 
Well, one can discuss if it is fine. Social norms are not carved in rock, they can be altered.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

  What makes you think that social norms like these MUST come from religion?
 
They must not always come from religion but many probably does.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 21:10
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Depends on whether he is a good Christian and pefers to give rather than receive.


LOL

We do enjoy the technicalities don't we.





Posted By: Sparten
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 21:37
Hey, it ain't no technicality. Nobodys is going to even imagine doing that to me.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 22:18
Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

Hey, it ain't no technicality. Nobodys is going to even imagine doing that to me.


No of course not, I am simply amused that you chose to explain the practical mechanics of the act and did so with the witty usage of a Christian saying.


Posted By: gruvawn
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2010 at 12:20
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

Originally posted by Sparten Sparten wrote:

The thing is if women want to be topless, sure don't let me stop them.
Got a stressful lifestyle, need some eyecandy
 
The Fem movement lost what little credibility it had when it starts on such issues.
 
That's just the thing! The feminist movement doesn't even need to factor into this debate. I'm certainly no feminist but since I'm a male who hasn't been neutered by neither feminism nor religion I prefer women who make themselves sexually available to me - if only visually - and any man who argues in favour of covering up women, separating them from men or heightening their treshold for getting on their backs should have his penis revoked, as he clearly doesn't have much use for it.


i disagree if you guys mean that women should be the classic "barefoot and pregnant". the problem arose when unlike the racial argument that white, black, yellow, whatever, are equal; the argument of feminists became that women should be men! they fought for the right to vote and ended up with the 'right' to cuss and cheat on their spouse, and leave their children in the care of strangers. 'rights' men shouldn't have had in the first place. by 'right' i mean considered acceptable. instead of helping to fix problems in society with their votes, women became part of the problem, regardless of whether they play for the 'blue team' or the 'pink team'.


-------------
don't believe everything you think. : )


Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2010 at 18:43
Oh I agree then, but that doesn't mean they can't be barefoot and pregnant.
 
The ancients had a much better understanding of the proclivities of the sexes and organised society accordingly. We however, or at least those of us who are northwest-European or influenced by that region's modern gender philosophy, have through our cultural revolutions drifted into some sort of historical abherration that's contrary to the practices found in almost every other culture in any given period. Either it's the beginning of a global change in human gender relations, or it will regress and be remembered as nothing more than a bizarre episode.


-------------
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey


Posted By: Woofer
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2013 at 02:03
I oppose most of you here. I am for the rules being the same for both sexes. Frankly the largest problem in the West is women getting special treatment -look at the money invested into breast cancer rather than testical cancer.

Women and men should be under the same rules and get the same treatment.

I find the whol stigma of nudity absurd in any case. A ridiculous hold over from oppressive religion.




Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2017 at 13:06
Lately (Dec '17) scientists have been making in roads into male breast cancer.  Male breast cancer is a lot more easy to study, men's breast history is not complex.  It is not complicated by the onset of puberty, breast feeding, or hormone replacement therapy.  Plus they have found a cluster of male breast cancers at a military base, Camp Lejeune, which is terribly polluted.  And so they think they have found or narrowed down on an environmental cause.  So ironically, the solution of women's breast cancer may be the result of figuring out male breast cancer first.

Most people don't look good nude.  We should be grateful that most people wear clothes.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 19 Dec 2017 at 13:40
I find this whole conversation rather distasteful.

Over the years, women have become more emancipated, and many are not afraid to show their naked bodies to the world. But that doesn't mean that they should!

That many, if not most men find the idea of a shapely naked female body highly alluring is not the point. The point is, as has been made earlier in this topic, adherence to a social norm. Of course this can vary from one culture to another, as can be shown by primitive New Guinea tribes. Men wear a very basic covering over their genitals, while women wear the briefest of skirts. To them this is a social norm.

Nor should we avoid the issue as it relates to males. In western society, there is a time and place to go shirtless, and it isn't in some nice hotel or restaurant.

IMHO, both genders suffer from varying degrees of vanity and this is shown by the wearing of sexy clothing in public, or no clothing at all.



http://www.worldhistoria.com/edit_post_form.asp?PID=104565&PN=2" rel="nofollow - http://www.worldhistoria.com/edit_post_form.asp?PID=104565&PN=2" width="1px" height="1px" style="display: none;">

-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2018 at 05:36
I think that there is a crude idea of equality between men and women.  It says if men can do it, then women can do it, (and visa versa).  Really what it does is make everybody into interchangeable parts for the machine.  Men and women are not the same, and if that is what "equality" means (sameness), that is wrong.  Men are not even the same as other men, and women are not the same as other women.  As I used to like telling the angst ridden goth at the coffeeshop, "you are unique, just like everybody else."

I don't know what would really be gained by allowing bare-breastedness.  But, it is probably true, that it is probably done more for men, than for women. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2018 at 09:56
But, there again, not all men have a breast fetish.  http://www.worldhistoria.com/battle-of-the-breasts_topic124502_post104678.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.worldhistoria.com/battle-of-the-breasts_topic124502_post104678.html" width="1px" height="1px" style="display: none;">

-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net