I was just answering a question that was posed. I don't know why it's out of the realm of possibility that women know about the issue and either don't want or don't care if there is a change. That opinion isn't wrong, and if that's how the majority of women in America feel about the situation I don't see why there should be a change. Though obviously I don't know if this is the case or not. That's why I bought it up, because if there is some kind of proof that the majority of women actually don't care if they're allowed to be topless or not it deserves to be talked about. And if there is proof otherwise in that there is a huge portion of the female population actively saying that they want it it should be considered as well.
Wow, comparing grown women making their own decisions to your niece? Really? And the rest of your post is just some of the most condescending mansplaining I've ever seen.
And again. Do tell us women what women do find sexy, eh?
Yes, and nudity shouldn't be illegal. People are prisoners of their own puritanical brainwashing. Think about it. We take people's money and freedom away for simply being naked in a place that the public might see them naked.
Then cover up women's faces too. Men look at women's faces to judge sexual attraction. Same goes for hips. Women need to wear barrels so we can't see their curves. Don't forget about the buttocks. We have to make sure men don't ever get reminded of sex when looking at women, after all.
I could want it so I could walk around topless like men can without getting possibly arrested or fined for disorderly behaviour.
This is why I don't like the "common sense" argument.
Your niece is presumably a child, which is why she needs things explained to them to avoid getting her in trouble. Comparing this to telling grown women they should cover up because you know better than them what's good for them is incredibly asinine, and yes it's textbook mansplaining.
Huh? Why the hell would I want to censor men nipples? I don't want to censor anything.
"Considered" by society, which is what many people want to change,
It's not a fetish but your attraction to them should have no bearing on whether or not women should be allowed to expose them. Some men are foot fetishists, should we ban bare feet in beaches, dojos, etc.?
He's not protecting him from the "dangerous boobies" he's doing his job and protecting him from a potential threat. As in anyone running up like she did would receive the same reaction from the guard.This protest pic is a great example of what's been discussed:
Most people are just going about their business.
"Oh, another protester."
Putin's first reaction is to give two thumbs up.
And his handler is trying to shield Putin from the "dangerous boobies."
The question is, who in this photo represents your stance?
Dude, and what if the person had a hidden explosive? That doesn't make him a shitty guard. Civilians are not supposed to get that close to your client. You would make a shitty guard by saying "Oh it's just a bare chested woman, no threat., not like it's my job to protect this guy or not." Not only that, but that poster was crafting a narrative by assuming that the guard was protecting the client because of "dangerous boobies," which is highly illogical and shows signs or persecution complex instead of the logical explanation that I provided.
Or behind her, or a small explosive. Or it could be assumed that she'd physically attack the main, either way, all of those scenarios are WAY more likely to be why the guard feels the need to protect his client instead of "Oh I need to protect him from t-the dangerous b-b-boobies."
Is there a video of this event?
lol @ thinking a half-naked protester is likely to have a bomb. FFS
No i'm providing reasons as to why a guard would protect his client over that unlikely narrative. You really think it was because he was afraid of breasts and felt the need to protect his client from said dangerous breasts? I wasn't directly saying "she likely has a bomb." I said FFS when it was a guard is shitty for being protective.
Thank you, it's a ridiculous comparison or assumption to make.
Yes preventing her from slapping is also a more plausible reason to protect is client than "oh no boobies. Either way, all of these reasons are more likely than the guard being afraid of breasts.
Am I reading this wrong or do you think more women would be in favor of allowing women to go topless in public than would be against?
Then I think you are underestimating how many women don't want to see other women's breasts in day to day life.
No we don't. The most obvious change is the shape and size of the breast, and swimsuits and cleavage are permitted and socially acceptable. The only part that is socially unacceptable to not cover are the nipples, and those certainly don't change much.
Certainly a more visible part than nipples, which is what needs to be covered. But then again most women shave their legs, particularly because they're horribly shamed if they don't, so... (shrugs)
