| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Battle of the Breasts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Topic ClosedBattle of the Breasts

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5206
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Battle of the Breasts
    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" width="1px" height="1px" style="display: none;">
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10022
Direct Link To This Post 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. 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5206
Direct Link To This Post 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" width="1px" height="1px" style="display: none;">

Edited by toyomotor - 19 Dec 2017 at 13:43
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10022
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Woofer View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Direct Link To This Post 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.


Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
gruvawn View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Location: usually indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 83
Direct Link To This Post 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'.


Edited by gruvawn - 05 Mar 2010 at 12:25
don't believe everything you think. : )
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5204
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 21:37
Hey, it ain't no technicality. Nobodys is going to even imagine doing that to me.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post 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.





Edited by Constantine XI - 04 Mar 2010 at 21:23
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5204
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2010 at 21:06
Depends on whether he is a good Christian and pefers to give rather than receive.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 5204
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Direct Link To This Post 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?

 




Edited by lirelou - 04 Mar 2010 at 14:40
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gruvawn View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Location: usually indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 83
Direct Link To This Post 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!


Edited by gruvawn - 05 Mar 2010 at 12:28
don't believe everything you think. : )
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
gruvawn View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Location: usually indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 83
Direct Link To This Post 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.



Edited by gruvawn - 04 Mar 2010 at 03:24
don't believe everything you think. : )
Back to Top
Dawn- View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Valkyrie

Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 4184
Direct Link To This Post 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.   
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Carcharodon - 04 Mar 2010 at 00:24
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11687
Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Seko - 03 Mar 2010 at 23:55
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
gruvawn View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2009
Location: usually indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 83
Direct Link To This Post 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. : )
Back to Top
Jeannie View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Jeannie - 10 Aug 2009 at 03:41
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.