Topless Women Not Breaking The Law, Says NYPD

[nuba km]

well society uses sexual to describe something that is inappropriate for public view and results in arousal. Everyone has penis or vagina so why are those inappropriate to have out in public so that value of them being sexual is made up. in the same money having value is made up. A made up value is one that varies from person to person and not about the current state of existence the object is in, i.e. a non measurable value.

Being bare assed (which is neccessary for being naked there basically) leaves literal shit on things and would spread crabs and other disgusting secretions on seats and the ground. Thats a real reason. Thats why its not cool, in my view, to be nude in day to day life. Breasts dont do that.

And I am perfectly fine with that logic, like I have said I am not disagreeing with this law, I am merely disagreeing with the statement that this is a movement of gender equality for reason I have wrote out multipal times because the person I am arguing with is saying I am using circular logic for saying that sexual is a made up concept.

 

[Brotha Desmond]

It's a shame that none of the women that you want to see topless would actually do it.

 

[nuba km]

well society uses sexual to describe something that is inappropriate for public view and results in arousal. Everyone has penis or vagina so why are those inappropriate to have out in public so that value of them being sexual is made up. in the same money having value is made up. A made up value is one that varies from person to person and not about the current state of existence the object is in, i.e. a non measurable value.

Again ... I'm pretty sure that the reason penises and vaginas are described as sexual is because they're used for sex. To have sex. For the purposes of sex. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6honxJ2uzwo] In the same way that the stomach is considered digestive. I could just be being close-minded, but I'm fairly certain that the labelling of the sex organs as sexual isn't just arbitrary linguistic quirkiness.

I know where your coming from but I am talking about sexual form a societal view point rather then a strict definition as gender equality is about how genders are treated, which is influenced by how society views things. So for strict definition sexual is a thing but societies concept of sexual is made up e.g. some societies any exposed skin is sexual but skin doesn't have a specific job in the process of sex.

 

[McKinsey]

Um ... as far as personal attacks go (against the posting guidelines, btw), that one is kind of weak, considering I'm a woman.

Sorry. Wasted my shell there, obviously.

Arguing with nature was a significant part of my college degree, and is something I can easily do right now if given appropriate tools. It's the power of science and all that.

Yeah, dude, when you have successfully overcome the nature-coded needs to eat, piss, shit and have sex, give me a holler. Good luck with that.

If someone is engaged in an activity where a distraction can have dire consequences, that person should not be easily distracted. If that person is easily distracted, it is evidently not qualified to be performing that activity in the first place. If your driving skills are so terrible that you will crash your car a the very sight of bare female breasts, you should not be driving at all, period.

That's exactly what I was talking about. In the ideal world, you don't get distracted by anything. You have full control over your body, your thoughts, your desires, your life. You are your own god.
In real life, though, you are nothing but an animal who's life is still dictated by basic instincts.

 

[Something Amyss]

So ... you would also be in favour of women being arrested for just being too damn sexy? Because sexy women are arousing to men and that's just nature, so they shouldn't be allowed out on the street because it's "distracting" for men and they might ... walk into lamp posts or something. Yep, makes total sense.

Considering the logic we apply to rape (we as a culture, not you and I specifically), I'd say criminalising the female body for this reason isn't any LESS logical....

Which saddens me greatly. I'ma go cry in the corner now.

 

[Something Amyss]

Look at it this way: homosexuality used to be an arrestable offence on the basis that it was a "perversion," until it was decided that there weren't only logical grounds for such a law. Therefore, using circular logic to claim that female breasts are sexual and therefore should be subject to the same laws as genitalia just doesn't hold up in a debate.

Actually, those laws long outlived the rationale behind it, depending on where you live. Me? I'm in the US. It was only in the last decade that those laws were deemed unconstitutional, and some are still on the books. Virginia is fighting to keep practicing theirs. That's more than 40 years after the scientific and psychological community first came onboard the fabulous train.

Given your spelling, I'm GUESSING the "Plymouth" in your profile is in the UK (Then again, I spell most things the British/Canadian way, so I could be wrong) and not say, Mass, which is a horse of a different colour.

 

[nuba km]

I know where your coming from but I am talking about sexual form a societal view point rather then a strict definition as gender equality is about how genders are treated, which is influenced by how society views things. So for strict definition sexual is a thing but societies concept of sexual is made up e.g. some societies any exposed skin is sexual but skin doesn't have a specific job in the process of sex.

But as someone said earlier, literally anything can be sexy to someone, even forearms. A society's unfounded and abstract ideas of what constitutes "sexual" shouldn't be codified into law when we already have a working definition for what parts of the body qualify as sexual. If you're arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to show their breasts because female breasts (and only female breasts) are "sexual," all I'd have to do would be to point you in the direction of an anatomy chart.

Look at it this way: homosexuality used to be an arrestable offence on the basis that it was a "perversion," until it was decided that there weren't any justifiable grounds for such a law. Therefore, using circular logic to claim that female breasts are sexual and therefore should be subject to the same laws as genitalia just doesn't hold up in a debate.

Like I said A. I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THIS LAW, I am agree that woman should be allowed to have their breasts out in public, what I am saying that it isn't a movement towards gender equality.

B. I also said what is considered 'inappropriate in public' in my social definition of sexual so your argument of people being able to find almost anything sexy is completely void and would not hold up in an argument.

Also it is the same logic as to why money is valuable so if you think that the social concept of sexual is void you are also saying money is void.

 

[Overusedname]

just think...if bare boobies became such a normal occurrence in our life, wouldn't that simply solve the problem of it being obscene? Problem solved, now let them boobies breath!

Fella, I like the cut of your gib.

 

[Colour Scientist]

It's a shame that none of the women that you want to see topless would actually do it.

Watch out, you will get all the "White Knights" to gang up and insult you, because apparently wanting ugly women to keep their shirts on is a bad thing.

Not everyone who calls you out when you say something shitty is a white knight. Do you even know what white knight means? Calling them such doesn't make you look any better.


Ugly dudes go around without shirts on all of the time and we have to grit our teeth and bear it.


Also, how have you never heard of Dorian Gray?

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It's a shame that none of the women that you want to see topless would actually do it.

Watch out, you will get all the "White Knights" to gang up and insult you, because apparently wanting ugly women to keep their shirts on is a bad thing.

Everyone (as far as i saw) who called you out was a woman. Are woman white knights now? Thats pretty empowering XD

 

[wulf3n]

Ugly dudes go around without shirts on all of the time and we have to grit our teeth and bear it.

Interesting philosophy - "We have to put up with something disgusting therefore you should have to as well."

Wouldn't a better answer be no one has to put up with something disgusting?

 

[wulf3n]

Ideally, but society currently has this annoying habit of considering people to have more rights than inanimate objects. I know, it's fucked up.

What does people having more rights than inanimate objects have to do with anything?

 

[Lilani]

Link's don't work on phone. Were you trying to prove some sort of point?

My point was that I've had to deal with ugly men going shirtless in public all my life. And here is where I'd post that .gif of the dog with the sunglasses that come down along with the words "Deal with it," but since you may not be able to see it I'll just leave it in words like so.