While I agree, there is a connotation in many western countries to consider. Were women to be topless, they would be perceived as a thrill seeker, mentally ill, hippy, or something else in that vein because of religious customs dictating that arousal of your self, or even others is sinful. Changing perceptions would be a generational effort and, at least in the US, things are swinging more conservative rather than less.
But, in some parts of Europe, toplessness is accepted on both sides of the aisle, so the world isn’t wholly broken. Asia has smatterings of the same. I support egalitarianism in all things, and it’s deeply frustrating that the human body is, mostly, stigmatized through crystalized, cancerous religious repression
Were women to be topless, they would be perceived as a thrill seeker, mentally ill, hippy, or something else in that vein because of religious customs dictating that arousal of your self, or even others is sinful.
This is more of an argument to go topless than anything else.
The only states in the US that have statewide bans on female toplessness is Indiana, Tennessee, and Utah. The majority of states in the US explicitly allow femme people to go topless because masculine people are allowed to go topless.
How about we stop warning women about existing as women and push against people who would perceive women as “a thrill seeker, mentally ill, hippy, or something else in that vein” for judging them.
Quoting my comment to disagree must have set off some hexbear essay ptsd. Re-reading, it’s far less abrasive than I initially took it to be. That’s my bad.
But it seems like we’re in disagreement solely on the basis of assumptions. You are right. Standing in solidarity with who need it is fundamental to maintaining freedoms and I wouldn’t even consider disputing that. However, the US seemed to be in a state worthy of societal triage, so freedom to be topless in the Bible Belt felt low on my list, compared to preserving people that I like.
It’s just exhaustion at decades worth of regression immediately after small progress, and recognition that the US is potentially beyond salvaging.
I like to quote so that it is clear which part of someone’s comment I am replying to directly.
I know it seems like the US is falling apart at the seams and we’re beyond saving, but that’s a bit hyperbolic when we’re just talking about laws around being topless. The Bible Belt isn’t the only place in the US either.
Women are often told what we should be doing to avoid being targeted or avoid being labeled any number of things.
I really was trying to have a conversation with you. No hostility here.
It is a violation of people’s sensibilities. People don’t wanna be exposed to nudity for personal or religious reasons. No need to expose yourself and violate that, no reason why one can’t just cover themselves up appropriately and avoid hurting others.
And I don’t want to be exposed to religious people because their repression and preaching is a violation of my sensibilities. When can I ban them?
no reason why one can’t just cover themselves up appropriately and avoid hurting others.
Your delicate sensibilities are not a reason to force someone to wear a shirt. If you’re offended by the human body to the point where seeing a woman topless violates your sensibilities, maybe you should stay home?
The world shouldn’t have to censor itself to save your feewings. But it’s better that the religious prudes get to dictate how everyone else can live, because gods forbid they have to be the slightest bit uncomfortable.
Breasts are not inherently sexual. Just because a person’s religion may ascribe sexuality to it, does not mean that everyone has to abide by that religion’s rules.
I’ve gotten my tits out in front of a cop in a red state in fhe US. Yeah people think things and it does correlate with counterculture, but fucking hell sometimes it’s too hot for a shirt
Ok but other days it’s just pretty hot and a breeze against my tits would be nice, and sometimes I’ve indulged that desire. In the same place. It’s legal so why not. And yeah mostly people are doing that at left wing summer festivals, but that’s ok, it worked to normalize it within those groups.
That’s what I’m saying. It’s silly that customs disincentivize an entirely harmless act. That an asterisk exists- can exist, means there has been a fundamental failure somewhere.
I mean, I guess? But going topless really shouldn’t qualify for that. Everyone can be gross. I’m disputing what it is that should be perceived that way. Nudity should be more broadly acceptable.
We need to flip the script and make men’s nipples inherently sexual. They don’t even dispense milk (this is a lie but most people don’t know that) they’re just an erogenous zone.
I saw a boob once as a child and I still go to therapy three times a month.
To be clear though, it has nothing to do with me seeing that boob, that would be ridiculous. If society thinks people need to be protected from boobs, it’s society that needs therapy.
I agree with the first. I think evolution would disagree with the second. The main purpose for partial display (aka cleavage) is enticement for attracting potential mates.
I dived in a bit, and I will concede that sexual use is not the main reason, since they evolved from primates and previous species in order to produce milk. But all other species don’t have them constantly enlarged. Studies show that there are many factors at play, such as providing more area of touch for the human infant and perhaps a more constant source of food since human infants take longer to mature. But they did develop the use for sexual signalling too when we became upright, if for nothing else than for showing sexual maturity. The human brain has probably evolved along with those changes to select which characteristics evolved more pronounced.
So they have multiple uses. The very fact that they are a subconscious trigger for the male has to mean something.
Everyone should be able to go topless if they wish. Boobs are not inherently sexual.
While I agree, there is a connotation in many western countries to consider. Were women to be topless, they would be perceived as a thrill seeker, mentally ill, hippy, or something else in that vein because of religious customs dictating that arousal of your self, or even others is sinful. Changing perceptions would be a generational effort and, at least in the US, things are swinging more conservative rather than less.
But, in some parts of Europe, toplessness is accepted on both sides of the aisle, so the world isn’t wholly broken. Asia has smatterings of the same. I support egalitarianism in all things, and it’s deeply frustrating that the human body is, mostly, stigmatized through crystalized, cancerous religious repression
This is more of an argument to go topless than anything else.
FREE THE TITTIES!
In abstract? Absolutely. All I’m going to say to this is to choose where you expend the effort wisely and spread the idea safely.
The only states in the US that have statewide bans on female toplessness is Indiana, Tennessee, and Utah. The majority of states in the US explicitly allow femme people to go topless because masculine people are allowed to go topless.
How about we stop warning women about existing as women and push against people who would perceive women as “a thrill seeker, mentally ill, hippy, or something else in that vein” for judging them.
I recommend heading to Utah to spread your ideas. Half of the US lives in deep, dangerous repression. Direct your misplaced aggression at them, not me
What? I live in the US. I’m speaking from my lived experience here. I agreed that Utah is one of the states that outlaws it.
I can’t have a conversation with you without being accused of being aggressive?
Quoting my comment to disagree must have set off some hexbear essay ptsd. Re-reading, it’s far less abrasive than I initially took it to be. That’s my bad.
But it seems like we’re in disagreement solely on the basis of assumptions. You are right. Standing in solidarity with who need it is fundamental to maintaining freedoms and I wouldn’t even consider disputing that. However, the US seemed to be in a state worthy of societal triage, so freedom to be topless in the Bible Belt felt low on my list, compared to preserving people that I like.
It’s just exhaustion at decades worth of regression immediately after small progress, and recognition that the US is potentially beyond salvaging.
I like to quote so that it is clear which part of someone’s comment I am replying to directly.
I know it seems like the US is falling apart at the seams and we’re beyond saving, but that’s a bit hyperbolic when we’re just talking about laws around being topless. The Bible Belt isn’t the only place in the US either.
Women are often told what we should be doing to avoid being targeted or avoid being labeled any number of things.
I really was trying to have a conversation with you. No hostility here.
deleted by creator
Only when society ascribes sexuality to things that are inherently not sexual.
Boobs are not inherently sexual.
If by “society” you’re referring to my erection, then yes, it’s society that ascribes sexuality to boobs.
deleted by creator
Being topless is not sexual violence.
It is a violation of people’s sensibilities. People don’t wanna be exposed to nudity for personal or religious reasons. No need to expose yourself and violate that, no reason why one can’t just cover themselves up appropriately and avoid hurting others.
And I don’t want to be exposed to religious people because their repression and preaching is a violation of my sensibilities. When can I ban them?
Your delicate sensibilities are not a reason to force someone to wear a shirt. If you’re offended by the human body to the point where seeing a woman topless violates your sensibilities, maybe you should stay home?
The world shouldn’t have to censor itself to save your feewings. But it’s better that the religious prudes get to dictate how everyone else can live, because gods forbid they have to be the slightest bit uncomfortable.
Would you say the same to breastfeeding parents?
Breasts are not inherently sexual. Just because a person’s religion may ascribe sexuality to it, does not mean that everyone has to abide by that religion’s rules.
While you are correct that the US is more conservative, we do have nude beaches.
I’ve gotten my tits out in front of a cop in a red state in fhe US. Yeah people think things and it does correlate with counterculture, but fucking hell sometimes it’s too hot for a shirt
Physical needs>>>>social decorum. Always. I just wish it didn’t even need to be qualified that way.
Ok but other days it’s just pretty hot and a breeze against my tits would be nice, and sometimes I’ve indulged that desire. In the same place. It’s legal so why not. And yeah mostly people are doing that at left wing summer festivals, but that’s ok, it worked to normalize it within those groups.
It’s a spectrum even on an individual level
That’s what I’m saying. It’s silly that customs disincentivize an entirely harmless act. That an asterisk exists- can exist, means there has been a fundamental failure somewhere.
You call men like that “perverts” or “sex pests”. Women can be those things too.
I mean, I guess? But going topless really shouldn’t qualify for that. Everyone can be gross. I’m disputing what it is that should be perceived that way. Nudity should be more broadly acceptable.
We need to flip the script and make men’s nipples inherently sexual. They don’t even dispense milk (this is a lie but most people don’t know that) they’re just an erogenous zone.
I saw a boob once as a child and I still go to therapy three times a month.
To be clear though, it has nothing to do with me seeing that boob, that would be ridiculous. If society thinks people need to be protected from boobs, it’s society that needs therapy.
I think men should cover their chests too.
I’d rather give people the choice than to police their bodies.
I agree with the first. I think evolution would disagree with the second. The main purpose for partial display (aka cleavage) is enticement for attracting potential mates.
The main purpose of mammary glands is feeding offspring.
Boobs can be sexual, but they are not inherently so.
I dived in a bit, and I will concede that sexual use is not the main reason, since they evolved from primates and previous species in order to produce milk. But all other species don’t have them constantly enlarged. Studies show that there are many factors at play, such as providing more area of touch for the human infant and perhaps a more constant source of food since human infants take longer to mature. But they did develop the use for sexual signalling too when we became upright, if for nothing else than for showing sexual maturity. The human brain has probably evolved along with those changes to select which characteristics evolved more pronounced.
So they have multiple uses. The very fact that they are a subconscious trigger for the male has to mean something.
Yep, they can be sexual but are not inherently sexual.
It’s not just men that are turned on by boobs.
Boobs are secondary sexual organs.
They are not sexual.
Ones biology the other is kinky! Know the difference it could save a life. Or a tiddy if you find a lump.
You’re absolutely right. For good reason, they’re wonderful.
The same works with some nice hairy man pecs cleavage, what’s your point?