• 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

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      FREE THE TITTIES!

        • velma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.

            • velma@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 days ago

              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.

                • velma@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  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.

                  • My initial comment was in respect to those places where it would be a major risk. Nearly everywhere I’ve been in the US would find little objection to toplessness, but I understand that isn’t universal. This effectively comes down to an inversion of “people live in cities.” People tend to suck more outside of cities. My friend, a witch, was ostracized from her small town for paganism, if you can believe that. So I’m still reeling from context alone.

                    And I certainly didn’t mean to condescend. Everyone here is an amorphous thought blob to me even after they express their physical characteristics. I was offering a generic “stay safe.”

        • velma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 days ago

          Only when society ascribes sexuality to things that are inherently not sexual.

          Boobs are not inherently sexual.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            If by “society” you’re referring to my erection, then yes, it’s society that ascribes sexuality to boobs.

              • wylinka@szmer.info
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                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.

                • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  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.

                • velma@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  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.

                  • wylinka@szmer.info
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    Would you say the same to breastfeeding parents?

                    No, that’s a situation where there’s a genuine reason to do it other than wanting to prove something or being a creep.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      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

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.

    • wylinka@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      thrill seeker, mentally ill, hippy, or something else

      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.