in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| WSJ | World: Europe Girds for Greek Exit |
0 |
| Shark Tank | Developing: Wasserman Schultz On Verge of Being Cancelled at Temple Israel |
0 |
| T’graph | 0 | |
| NYT | Policy: Romney Calls Education ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Era’ and Urges Shift |
0 |
| RCP | Campaign 2012: Why Tuesday’s Democratic Primaries Matter |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Hot topic: Is the ban on women’s toplessness in public “unconstitutional”?
Hey ya’ll. Hope everyone has had a nice Memorial Day weekend so far.
I’ve been honoring the sacrifices our soldiers have made by exercising my right to free speech in debating at a political forum over whether or not women being banned from being able to go out in public topless is “unconstitutional” because it “discriminates” against women. The liberal argument goes something like this: Men are not banned from doing so, so why should women be? My response has been to repeatedly point out that it is not “discrimination” because men are required to cover up their, ahem, private parts in public, too. The response then is only one sex is allowed to bare their “breasts.” My response was to point out that men’s “breasts” were not a sexual part of their anatomy. And then there was an attempt at defining “sexual anatomy.” Sigh. It just went on and on.
I should point out – purely for the record – that not a single woman joined in the thread to argue the side that the (liberal and libertarian) males were arguing. Those males claimed their arguments were purely based on their concern that women were being “oppressed” – and one pointed to a couple of court cases (lower – state level) where the court agreed.
The conservative males, while joking about what a US with the ban on the laws against female toplessness repealed would look like, tended to agree with me. I said several times that decency laws like that existed for a reason, and that I would no more want a man to have “the right” to walk around anywhere bottomless than for me or any other woman to have “the right” to walk around anywhere topless. Can you imagine how awful it would be for a woman to have some guy “accidentally” bump into her while in line at the bank while – erm – you know, obviously being “happy” about something? Or a woman who “mistakenly” brushes up against a man in lin at the grocery store who is not attracted to her in any way? How about the mixed signals “bare all” laws would send to kids?
What do you think? In the event that anyone disagrees with me, please don’t let that make you hesitant to post your arguments. I am interested in seeing them.
Never let it be said that we don’t tackle the tough issues here at the ST blog 
Cross-posted to Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
This is an argument for boobs.
I think that if you take away men’s right to drive or operate heavy machinery it’s perfectly all right for women to go topless.
Seriously, this is one of those things best left to local ordinance. I have a hard time finding in the constitution or any natural law the unalienable right to go au naturel.
Besides, there are just some people who shouldn’t be seen with their shirts off.
In the spirit of William Jefferson Clinton I propose that certain women be required – by law – to go topless in public. And bottomless. They would also be issued carbon-neutral kneepads to honor WJC’s efforts to keep abortion legal. Only sexually-repressed Christianist illegal war-for-oil prudes could oppose this.
In the spirit of multiculturalism I also propose that the rest of the women be required – again, by law – to wear shapeless black dresses that cover them head to toe, that they not be allowed to drive, talk to men outside of their families, work, and vote. They should also be required by law to marry at age 8. Only neocon racist global warming-denying Islamophobes could oppose this.
Ban on women’s public toplessness? Sounds like a naked power grab to me!
There is an obvious answer that all sides seem to ignore. Laws should require, without reference to gender, that nipples and genitalia be covered in public.
Not only would this bring equality to the issue, it meets the needs of the overwhelming majority of women. For just as the majority of women would never go topless in public even if it were legal, so the majority of women do not want men to have the right to indiscriminate public shirtlessness.
Many women have objections on moral or religious grounds to seeing shirtless male strangers; and most women find the endless parade of armpit hair, sagging man-boobs and jiggly, sweaty-furred tummies very off-putting.
The public square needs standards that protect children and are the same for everyone. The problem is not discrimination against women who cannot go topless, but rather lack of regulation and enforcement against men who do.
It’s all about social “norms”. A civilized group of people will accept what a majority of the people believe to be normal behavior. This places limits on what the majority feel to be decent behavior. The past 40 years have seen minority viewpoints take popular precedence over what the majority feel to be acceptable behavior. Example: the phrase “define normal” becomes an excuse to whatever one feels without consequence to others feelings. It is selfishness to the extreme. There can be no rejection of any type of anti-social behavior without hearing the words “define normal”, “don’t infringe upon my rights”, or “shut the f**k up”. When we removed God or any type of higher power from our lives (and believe me, I’m not religious by any means) and placed ourselves at the center of the universe, we became undisciplined, selfish, spoiled brats where there are no rules, and no behavior which is too far out of bounds. Sure, depending on the woman, I’d love to see some go topless. But if it is a problem for anyone, I accept that and move on with life. It’s called “maturity”.
Something to chew about! It’s not a matter of equality rights, but one of morality and decency, one of social norms acceptable to the community. In every community there are rebels, I agree. But there has to be some control somewhere so that life would not become hell for others. This is what distinguishes the homosapiens from the animals. These are values one should imbibe from the parents at home. I know families are defined differently now, and most of the old fashioned ones have crumbled down or are about to fall. Precious few are holding on to the same old values.
Having the law repealed would be acceptable to the men folk, no doubt, provided their mothers, wives and daughters do not subscribe to it. Let Obamerica legalize a new national dress code to this effect that all women above the age of 12 should wear formal skirts or trousers and should not cover their bodies above their hip except for a hat or headgear. Likewise, all the men above 15 should wear formal shirts and should not cover their bodies below the hip, except for a footwear.
I do understand the emotions of Mwalimu Daudi here, but I don’t think only “sexually-repressed Christianist illegal war-for-oil prudes” will agree to it. No true Christian will contribute to such vulgar, perverted practices. All the other religious imposters also would be happy if it happens. Having a harem do not necessarily hide their animal instincts. Women can be modestly dressed in clothings other than shapeless black head-to-toe outfits too. Women are not slaves nor child-producing sex toys. They too have their intelligence, emotion and will, as God created them also in His image. Only moronic pedophiles would marry girls at the age of eight. No culture is perfect or sacrosanct, because it is the sinful humans that make the culture.
Shame on a country that had once upon a time claimed “In God we trust”. America is the seat of all vulgarity, perversion and sin and no wonder its doom is fast approaching.
This is just one more example of a bunch of liberal men pretending to look out for the interests of an “oppressed” group. There was no outcry from women because quite frankly, I think well over 99% of all women wouldn’t feel comfortable walkking around with their breasts exposed, so every man (and San Francisco woman) could get a look. Those on the extreme left should be spending their time worrying about real problems like the Screecher of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and how the left is running America into the ground. Also, the thought of men running around bottomless is somehow even scarier than the prospect of eight years of Obama.
In ancient Greece the style was for women to leave one breast exposed. The style changed so it must not have been practical (maybe to cold or inciting as you mentioned). Women globally for millenia have covered up so the votes appears to be in favor of cover up. In the ancient Roman baths men and women bathed together naked but covered up outside. In Japan at least until a couple decades ago both sexes bathed together in public baths but both covered up outside. Water, especially heated water was probably scarce. Outside without the heat it is probably just too cold.
You know it makes no sense to say “men can do it, why can’t women”. When the great majority of rapes happen to women and not men. Why encourage the perverts that run rampid in our society, thank you liberal judges, and fuel their perversion. How do you prosecute a man for reaching out and touching a bare breast when that is what we want from soon after puberty ends. These people are not being truthful when they say their only concern is equality. – Lorica
I find this discussion very funny. Mostly because a woman being topless in most states is legal but most people do not understand this. Even the police in many areas do not understand this. Many women have been arrested for being topless outside of their home, only to have the charges dismissed. Speaking as a nudist, statistically speaking, more nudists consider themselves conservative than those who consider themselves liberal.
Lorica, that is exactly the point of all this: to make acceptable such behavior as rape and pedophilia.
Daveinphoenix, excellent analysis. I would only add that one of the dumbest phrases out of the 60s was “You can’t legislate morality.” Fercryinoutloud, that is exactly what any legislation is, is a reflection of the morality of the society, whether it is in our “free” society, in a socialist society or in any despotism.
Thanks for the post, ST.
As a woman, I do not feel oppressed for not being allowed to show my “girls” in public. That’s what European beaches are for.
The right to bear arms is supported by The Constitution. Does the right to bare boobs have any support?
Discriminates against WOMEN? I’d say the restriction discriminates agaist MEN, who are deprived of the pleasure of seeing luscious breasts at every turn.
And if the law is changed to allow bare breasts, this ALSO discriminates against men. Distractions everywhere, making it impossible for us to concentrate on anything.
Hey guys–we win the victimization contest!
@CZ: That’s a little-known subsection of the second amendment.
Well if this becomes law it should be upheld unilaterally. All women should be bare. Just like certain tribes in Africa.
– Lorica