And we could cringe in horror just like we do with some men who do it all the same.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I posted an image of topless man & women on Facebook, was removed
- Thread starter Prototype
- Start date
- Status
And we could cringe in horror just like we do with some men who do it all the same.
Christopher
Member
How is it sexism if majority of women don't feel comfortable exposing what they define as their private areas in public?? How on earth is that sexism? No one is advantageous going topless over one sex for any kind of benefit...
HiredN00bs
Member
You're really missing the point, here.
Let's take a beach, Ocean City, MD is one nearby where I live. Now, would you like to go swimming in the ocean? Cool. Would you like wear a top while swimming?
If the answer is yes, you're fine.
If the answer is no, you are presented with two possible outcomes:
If you have what appear to be feminine breasts and/or nipples you will be arrested.
If you appear to have masculine breasts and/or nipples, you are free to go about your business.
Explain to me why that is not a sexist situation.
This is why Anita makes her videos and why immature people respond with the vitriol they do. They're too up their own culture to step back and look at things in an objective way or just from a different perspective.
I would like to point out that studies show that wearing bras cause breasts to sag
But I think woman should be able to go topless if they would like to
Aint hurting no one
And maybe people would have more self confidence if society didnt constantly censor their bodies
Also this
THIS IS JUST AN ANALOGY, but it was also sexist for women to be kept from voting, or going to school, or anything really, even when a majority of them were okay with not.
Just because a group is passive towards oppression, doesn't stop it from being oppression.
Christopher
Member
What a horrible analogy
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
You can label the thread NSFW to completely avoid that, but you still can't post women's nip nips out in the open.
John Kowalski
Banned
What's so terrible about it? Seems perfectly fine to me.
Good analogy. This is the problem I have with the breast ban. I don't see why the penalty a woman should deal with is being arrested and fined or jailed when us men don't have to deal with this.
I wouldn't really care as much about this debate if the penalties for this double standard weren't so severe. If you have a problem with some girl walking around topless that's your prerogative but there isn't any practical reason to have this codified into law.
It got taken down from Facebook, why would I risk it getting taken down, and possibly getting banned on a site I love more?
I still wanted to have a conversation about it though. So here we are.
That's why I think people pointing this out are missing the focal point of the conversation. Getting the topic closed and not having the conversation at all is worse imo.
HiredN00bs
Member
All touching without permission is assault.
By what law or definition? Is tapping someone on the shoulder assault? I'm not intending to affirm the question you quoted, but that is a ridiculously broad statement.
HiredN00bs
Member
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
So reaching for the breasts would be assault, grabbing them would be battery, which the poster I responded to classified as "hijinks".
That link defines assault much less broadly than your original statement which was my entire point.
John Kowalski
Banned
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
How many people do you think have been convicted of purely placing there hands on a man's chest and giving them a gentle rub?
"At common law, simple battery is a misdemeanor. The prosecutor must prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
an unlawful application of force
to the person of another
resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching."
HiredN00bs
Member
Can you please re-read what you bolded there?
Prophet Steve
Member
...As far as I know it would be classified under sexual assault.
And it is still illegal even when you go topless.
And it is still illegal even when you go topless.
I do think there is semblance of a point in the implications of that. Is it unequal that women can't go topless in places where men can? Absolutely. Is it inherently sexist? That is less clear. I think most people would agree that a woman having her chest touched without warning is more of an invasion of personal space than the same happening to a man. So do I think women should be able to go topless in places where men can? Sure, and the notion that children need to be protected from the sight of a full grown woman's boobs is just puritanical holdover, though honestly, I agree with the notion that aside from when near a swimming area, I think its weird when dudes go shirtless in most public places too. But clearly there is more to how we treat men and women's chests differently than sexism, unless we want to throw out the notion that touching a woman's chest unannounced is more of a violation than touching a man's, which I'm sure most of the people debating this topic don't.
It's all about intent.
If a woman or man is just walking around topless, there's nothing sexual.
If a woman or man is topless, rubbing themselves and moaning, that's probably indecent exposure.
By the same token, if someone trips and ends up grabbing me for balance, there's nothing there that would fall under sexual or assault.
If someone just grabs my nips though (I'm a guy), they're likely getting punched.
I would assume that a woman would have the same reaction.
If a woman or man is just walking around topless, there's nothing sexual.
If a woman or man is topless, rubbing themselves and moaning, that's probably indecent exposure.
By the same token, if someone trips and ends up grabbing me for balance, there's nothing there that would fall under sexual or assault.
If someone just grabs my nips though (I'm a guy), they're likely getting punched.
I would assume that a woman would have the same reaction.
If you punch a woman for grabbing your chest, she is not the one who is going to get charged for assault.
HiredN00bs
Member
I don't see any reason why the two shouldn't be dealt with identically in a fair, just society. The problem is that we live in a society of gender biases propped up by gender biases. There is a perception that men should always welcome the touch of a woman, or that if they did object to it, they would be subject to ridicule. If public decency laws were altered to permit women to be topless on public beaches, it would be problematic, and we might need to treat such offenses against women more harshly to protect the rights of women, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.
you cant be fucking serious.
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying here, but I think some (certainly not all) of the differences in laws and cultural norms can be attributed to biological differences rather than sexism. Note that I'm talking about actual biological differences here, like menstruation, child bearing, average physical strength, breast development due to estrogen, hormone levels, etc, not some kind of gender phrenology bullshit. The fact that those inherent physiological differences exist mean that even in a theoretically fair society, not everything could be treated identically between genders. Instead, I think it would be healthier to recognize that differences occasionally arise due to biology, but also not stigmatize those who do not fit into traditional gender roles. Culturally, and possibly due to evolutionary biology, the form of the female breast is viewed as more sexual than male breasts. Breasts are a sexually dimorphic trait, so viewing a female version as more sexual is not the equivalent of, for example, saying a bare female ankle is immodest while a male one is not. Therefore, I don't think we can say definitively that it's inherently sexist that a cultural norm might consider their exposure as more sexual or immodest than a male chest. Of course nudity is not intrinsically sexual, the idea that anyone needs to be protected from non-sexual nudity is a cultural one, not a biological one, which is why I agree that anywhere a man can go shirtless a woman should be able to go topless, I just don't agree that this is necessarily an issue of sexism.
ShemhazaiX
Member
As a male, I'm all for making it illegal for men to walk around topless in public.
Actually scratch that. How else would I be able to spot douches. ._.
*Disclaimer: from the UK, so if a man is topless, it's not usually going to be because it's too warm.*
edit: I apologise if I offended any nudists. I just find topless men icky. Nothing against women walking around topless though.
Actually scratch that. How else would I be able to spot douches. ._.
*Disclaimer: from the UK, so if a man is topless, it's not usually going to be because it's too warm.*
edit: I apologise if I offended any nudists. I just find topless men icky. Nothing against women walking around topless though.
HolyBaikal
Banned
I'm not very attracted to feminine chests. So even if it were allowed or common, it wouldn't be very sexual for me.
But I think that women should definitely be able to go topless without getting in trouble or being shamed. Women's chests aren't any more sexual than men's chests. And women should be allowed to go topfree.
And men's chests and women's chests shouldn't be treated differently.
I'm sometimes attracted to men's chests. That doesn't mean that men's chests should be censored, does it?
But I think that women should definitely be able to go topless without getting in trouble or being shamed. Women's chests aren't any more sexual than men's chests. And women should be allowed to go topfree.
And men's chests and women's chests shouldn't be treated differently.
I'm sometimes attracted to men's chests. That doesn't mean that men's chests should be censored, does it?
ThatStupidLion
Member
it's legal for women to walk around topless in nyc
Prophet Steve
Member
- Status