Topless Women Not Breaking The Law, Says NYPD

[Something Amyss]

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.

Apparently on top of never having seen a woman naked, I'm a white knight as well. My gender is so confused right now.

You can save yourself. How epic is that?

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.

I thought "white knight" was another internet buzzword that lost all semblence of meaning years ago when adopted by the greater public. Basically, now meaning exactly what he used it to mean, "someone who says something I don't like," in the same vein as "feminazi."

Being European, this fails to impress me.

Seeing topless women in the streets isn't uncommon here, especially during summer and music festivals.

America, however, was founded by prudes. I saw it in that documentary, "Eurotrip."

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

I see it more as "You're whining about a reality where you have to deal with what we deal with."

One of the recurring themes regarding women and equality is the horrible, terrible, awful prospect that men might have to deal with things women deal with all the time.

Though honestly, I'd like a single standard either way, so I don't care if it's tops on or off.

 

[nuba km]

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.

I think the reason that money is considered valuable is because it's the system upon which virtually the entire world's economy, and everything related to the economy (which is, more or less, everything) is dependent. Can the same thing be said of boobs? It's not really a very accurate comparison.

it is the same type of logic applied on a different scale, but if you insist.

Scientificly speaking, fish don't exist. Their is absolutely no biological classification for what a fish is nor are they genetically similar, (don't know actual examples but here are some hypothetical ones that kinda get the message across) tuna would be more closely related to bears then it is to cod. Our society has a view that if something has gills, lays eggs, has scales and no lungs, its a fish. Fish is a completely made up property that can be used in society but if I sold cod and you asked for two fish I wouldn't go 'well scientifically speaking their is no such thing as a fish'. In the same way our societal view of what sexual is is different from the scientific one.

Also it doesn't matter what you call it at the end of the day our society is going to react differently to exposed female breast then it is to exposed female breast. Then you will say, "there still shouldn't be a law about it", but that is a strawman(which you keep on using despite that you seem to hate crappy argument Technics) as I am not arguing in favour of making it illegal to expose breast I am saying that society will react differently to exposed female breast as to male breast hence its not a move to gender equality. Then you will say "a but society will change" and yes it will over one or 2 generation, but in the same way that it still hasn't accepted men wearing skirts and dress I imagine it will be a lot longer until on a boiling day you can unzip you fly and let out your conkers to cool down. Then you say "but breasts and testicles aren't equals" to which I say their both spherical, are extra sensitive, produce a white liquid filled with nutrition and are only visually appealing because we are genetically programmed to like them so. While scientificly speaking breast are secondary, sociatly speaking they are both pretty equally considered inappropriate in public despite the fact everyone knows they exist and that knowledge never hurt anyone.

 

[Something Amyss]

But if I save myself, am I entitled to sexual favours from myself?

Scuttlebutt on the Escapist is you've never seen a woman naked, so probably not.

Maybe you should just offer yourself your hand in marriage.

 

[Lilani]

Please to not misunderstand me, I agree with woman being allowed to have their breasts out in public.

What I am saying is that this isn't a move for gender equality as the imaginary property of "sexual" Is applied to female breasts heavily while it is applied to a negative level with male breast. The only reason a society covers body parts is because their considered too sexual. So either for this to be a movement towards gender equality female breast have to stop being considered sexual or men have to be allowed to show some of their sexual organs. Otherwise the genders are being treated unequally which wouldn't be a move for gender equality.

I understand what you're saying here, but again you're basically proposing that we uphold societal perceptions with the law. To put it plainly, the penis and the vagina are the only external sexual organs we have, anatomically speaking. Even with female breasts "legalized," this is still true and still upheld by decency laws. So, equality in that regard has been achieved. All secondary sexual organs are good, primary sexual organs are not good. All is right in the world. If you make the penis okay to brandish in public, then you'd have to make the vagina okay too in order to get that equality back.

Laws need to be based on objective standards, not how society is feeling about something on a specific day at a specific time when the wind's blowing just right. This way is based on objectivity, your way is based on subjectivity.

 

[wulf3n]

You don't think that referring to a person as "something" has connotations of that??

Oh, I see. You're riddling my statement with your own bias.

I was referring to the "act" as something not the person.

Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that "ugly" people should have different rights than "beautiful" people. Which ... uh. Yeah. Good luck using that as an election platform.

On the contrary, I suggested nothing of the sort. What I was suggesting is rather than make it ok for women to go topless instead make it not ok for men.

I'd suggest taking what I say literally, as I'm unlikely to imply something over just actually saying it. [unless of course the statement ends in "" in which case I'm being facetious]

I see it more as "You're whining about a reality where you have to deal with what we deal with."

One of the recurring themes regarding women and equality is the horrible, terrible, awful prospect that men might have to deal with things women deal with all the time.

The issue I have is that it seems to imply the issue of "undesirable" men being topless as something only woman experience.

Though honestly, I'd like a single standard either way, so I don't care if it's tops on or off.

Quite true.

 

[Something Amyss]

Scientificly speaking, fish don't exist.

I'm thinking this is crap. The closest I come to finding anything on this is that they're not monophyletic. That's not the same as there being no defining traits or single definition.

Then you will say, "there still shouldn't be a law about it", but that is a strawman(which you keep on using despite that you seem to hate crappy argument Technics) as I am not arguing in favour of making it illegal to expose breast

Addressing the overall topic at hand is not a strawman, but rather just that. At worst, it's tangential to your argument.

While scientificly speaking breast are secondary, sociatly speaking they are both pretty equally considered inappropriate in public despite the fact everyone knows they exist and that knowledge never hurt anyone.

Actually, societally breasts are still a softer target than testicles. There's no equality here, which sort of makes your overarching argument invalid. Sorry, chum.

 

[dagens24]

Well... this is weird. Logical, but weird. Leave it to New York to pioneer the equality front when it comes to exposed boobs. I wonder how many women will indulge this? I'm sure many women still would feel quite awkward without a top on. Hell, I feel awkward most of the time because of my slight moobage. Plus, don't larger breasts tend to... ya know, flop around when they aren't contained? Seems inconvenient to the bustier folks. But nobody is forcing them to do it, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Man... just, super weird. This will take some getting used to.

They ain't pioneering shit; there's loads of cities in North America where it is lawful for women to go topless. My home city of Ottawa being one such.

 

[Darken12]

Now, don't get me wrong. Power of science and all that is a lovely thing, and I agree on the sentiment...just not the wording. Science is not about "arguing with nature". It's about "understanding nature".

I consider the difference between those two things as the difference between theoretical research and applied research. We can shoot a bacterium with a gold bullet in order to change it on a genetic level (and change it exactly the way we want to). I'd say that's quite the stirring dissertation with good old nature.

What you argue with is "people's poor understanding of nature" (as is the case here, indeed). Sometimes the understanding is especially poor in that some people seem to consider whatever we humans do to be above nature, or separate from nature. And damn, that's arrogant.

Just thought I'd ring in with that.

That's true, I suppose, but I am a big fan of destroying people's conceptions of what "natural" means. I can shoot a bacterium with a bullet so that it will later synthesise human insulin. That is a gross violation of what people traditionally consider "natural". And it's awesome.

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.

In order: parenteral nutrition [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenteral_nutrition], dialysis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialysis], parenteral nutrition again, and artificial insemination [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination] (or, you know, celibacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy] or chemical castration [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration], depending exactly on what you mean by "overcoming").

Welcome to the twentieth century! It's over, though, you missed it. So welcome to the twenty-first century! You're over a decade late for that one too, so I'm glad we caught you on time.

In real life, though, you are nothing but an animal who's life is still dictated by basic instincts.

You will forgive me if I do not share that belief in the slightest. Determinism ain't my thing.

I have stated that sexual is a non existing property that is only given by society so something, anything, is only as sexual as society views it. Its like money is worth something because it is worth something. If you are saying that because of that logic breast shouldn't be considered sexual then nothing should be considered sexual and money shouldn't be worth anything. Now I hear you saying 'that's just a slippery slope argument' well that is correct but that leads me to my next point. Everyone draws a line at what point you should stop with what cloths you can and can't take off. Society normally draws it at what is commonly accepted as sexual and I am saying that for this to be a movement for gender equality both genders should be allowed to have a same amount of "sexual" revealed. So either society has to shift for boobs to no longer to be sexual for this to be equal for both genders or men would have to allowed to maybe show one testicle (sometimes they just need to cool down).

I think your problem here is "this isn't gender equality because men aren't benefitting from this somehow". That's the point. Redressing a gender inequality may often mean that only one gender benefits from the change, because the other gender already enjoyed a certain privilege (such as displaying their breasts openly). This is one of such cases. This isn't a statement on sexual body parts or lewdness. This isn't about whether breasts are considered sexual by society or not. This is about the law applying equally for both genders (that being, that shirtlessness is not a lewd act or public indecency, regardless of gender).

 

[nuba km]

snip

snip

snip

snip

1. There is a biologist how spend his life researching fish, and he found that if we take all vertebrae that aren't, birds, mammals, reptiles or amphibians there is no definition that would apply to all of them that wouldn't also apply to a bird, mammal, reptile or amphibian. Also animals are grouped on genetics and fish genetically speaking have basically nothing to do with each other. while birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians all have common ancestors. Hence there is scientifically no way to classify fish.

2. At no point have I been arguing that breasts should not be exposed, nor have I implied it. My argument is merely that woman being allowed to go topless is not a move towards gender equality as a woman going topless is not the same as a man going topless. People react differently, and for the love of god if one you pulls out that fucking strawman of society shouldn't dictated law I will started my flame-thrower now as I have just stated this isn't about law like I have in most of my posts, also every law is dictated by society as without society there would be no law and vise versa.

3. just making an entire point to emphasis this ain't about law.

4. seriously stop bringing up law.

5. So really you are trying to pull at straws saying that boobs aren't sexual are you really saying that if you took a survey of people along most streets and asked them if boobs are sexual they would go no. In the same way that if you ask the average person fish exist, just look at a restaurant menu. But I am guessing that you guys will keep telling me that fish are a thing and I will keep telling you that female breast are sexual and hence having them exposed is different to man boobs or a healthy man's chest.

its 1 am I am going to go sleep now.

 

[Darken12]

3. just making an entire point to emphasis this ain't about law.

4. seriously stop bringing up law.

This is literally the point of this thread.

This is not about whether this or that body part is seen as sexual or not, and whether it should be seen as sexual or not. You want to have a discussion that is not related to what the thread is about. That is not what is being discussed. This is about a ruling made by the NYPD on a given part of the penal law. The statement is not about whether breasts are sexual or not. This is about a woman's right to be held to the same dressing and public decency standards as any man's.

 

[Lilani]

2. At no point have I been arguing that breasts should not be exposed, nor have I implied it. My argument is merely that woman being allowed to go topless is not a move towards gender equality as a woman going topless is not the same as a man going topless. People react differently, and for the love of god if one you pulls out that fucking strawman of society shouldn't dictated law I will started my flame-thrower now as I have just stated this isn't about law like I have in most of my posts, also every law is dictated by society as without society there would be no law and vise versa.

Laws are dictated by society, however subjective notions should be mitigated if at all possible. Just as we don't let how certain people feel about black people or gays dictate what laws we make regarding them, how certain people feel about breasts shouldn't override the simply physiological fact of what they are. Yes male and female breasts mean different things to different people. We all knew that already, that's sort of what caused this problem in the first place. Allowing a taboo to determine how 50% of the population is allowed to dress, that sort of is a big deal as far as civil rights are concerned. At least it's a big deal if you replace "breasts" with "burqas."

The notion that breasts are sexual is completely subjective, and so has no place in law. There. I said it. And the reason I said it is because the law is about the only thing which puts your opinion here into context. If you aren't talking about the policy that was changed, then why bring it up at all? We already know people react differently and that breasts mean different things to different people, and we already know where our individual societies stand on this particular route.

I've decided I'm going to call this the "old news effect," as I've seen it happen more than once on these boards. By bringing up something that is old news to all participants, you open what you say up to further critique. People read what you say and they think "He can't possibly just be saying that, it's too simple. He must have another motivation for saying that." So they fill in the blank with whatever motivation seems most appropriate. You keep trying to convince us that our society sees breasts as sexual, which we already know, so we guess that you must be reiterating this as some sort of evidence that female breast exposure should remain illegal.

 

[Lilani]

Ah, well now I have to see twice the ugly. Thanks -_-

I realize (or at least I hope) you're being facetious with your dismay, but just in case, if you really would rather women be not allowed to dress the way they want simply because you think women owe you some level of comfort or prettiness in what you see when looking at them, then:


It's already happening, so you just get to deal with it. Any further dismay will just be thoroughly enjoyed by all around you who are also ambivalent.

 

[DugMachine]

Seems kind of odd to me. I don't believe anybody should be topless be they male or female, put a fucking shirt on.

And yeah I suppose breasts to an adult are no big deal but even the slightest ounce of cleavage had me pitching a tent when I was a child. Hormones don't give a shit about logic.