Topless Women Not Breaking The Law, Says NYPD

[FieryTrainwreck]

Why? Tyranny of the majority is an important thing to remember also. It would be convenient 49% of people to serve 51% for free. That doesnt mean they should dictate things to them. I KNOW this is an extreme example, but it underscores the idea that a majority shouldnt be able to impose just anything on a minority. I dont think straight men/gay women should be able to dictate what women are allowed to wear.

Again, you're deploying a strict argumentative form with no regard for context. Comparing "49% working for the other 51% for free" to "women aren't allowed to go topless" is such an enormous contextual stretch as to obliterate the discussion. Seriously, man: the world doesn't adhere to first year prop logic.

The dong example is awful. Cmon think for a moment about my side of the argument. Im against our sexual organs being out for hygine reasons, NOT for arbitrary reasons. I dont want an STD from a bus seat thanks. Nor do i want any "secretions" from peoples inability to wipe on public chairs. This is an argument based in rational points. Maybe YOUR reasoning applies to both. But dont assume mine does. They dont qualify for similar reasoning. You cant wipe shit on a chair accidentally with a bare breast (unless youre REALLY fucked up) nor can you give me crabs via a bus seat. Your biology can dictate you like breasts. Thats fine. But thats a shitty reason to cover them up. Also you deployed a slippery slope argument here:

Then amend my comment to this: people are allowed to wear completely transparent underwear. You can see absolutely everything, but there is no risk of any hygiene issues. Would we allow that? If we didn't, wouldn't a person be able to deploy the same inflexible reasoning you're using in this thread?

"If we've decided it's perfectly acceptable for such features to be flopping about in public, what's to stop a man from deploying a similar argument in favor of going completely nude?"

Despite saying:

"a society of self-governing people is allowed to determine for itself what is and isn't acceptable. We're intelligent sentient beings capable of deciding for ourselves where we draw lines. Otherwise it's all a never-ending "slippery slope" argument flying towards oblivion."

So your point is totally invalidated by your own logic. That i agree with. Also the hygiene argument defeats this.

Hygiene argument thoroughly ejected by my last point. Also, my point in bringing up the slipper slope is that most of our decisions regarding what is and is not appropriate are extremely arbitrary. We decide where to draw the line based on a combination of majority ideals and minority protection. If I thought that women wearing tops were an oppressed minority, I'd be much more likely to side with your reasoning on the matter. But I don't. Because 99% of women are perfectly content covering their breasts. The entire argument for "equality" in this thread stems from a strict argumentative form with a grounding in cold science, which is fine. I'm seeing that argument and raising you "social constructs, even arbitrary ones, matter".

Of course its ok for there to be differences. There are differences. And if the rules are relevant to those differences on a rational basis go for it. But in this case they are not. And its also unfair to assume that just because YOU havnt heard something decried loudly that it doesnt matter or no one cares. You dont get to assume peoples opinions. If they banned people with brown eyes from eating grapefruit i woudldnt complain too badly because it doesnt matter THAT much. But its still wrong and youd agree methinks that such a law would be stupid. Its not up to the majority to police other peoples bodies unless it might directly cause you harm (like disease with hygiene issues). You can look down on it sure, just dont make it illegal. And look down at it knowing theres no rational reason to do so. Also fine. But i in turn have the right to look down on an irrational opinion

Another completely ridiculous example. I'm guessing that maybe, just maybe, I'd hear about brown-eyed people being denied delicious grapefruit. Constantly. Reliably. From half or more of the people in my world *regardless of where I live or my social circles*. And there certainly wouldn't be any brown-eyed folks on the side of the horrible grapefruit oppressors. Meanwhile, plenty of women recognize that their breasts, despite serving no specific reproductive purpose, are very obviously sexual in nature given our social constructs.

Keep in mind im arguing against LAWS for this kinda thing. You can think whatever you want. And people can ignore what you think and do what they want. As long as its out of law thats fine.

Laws regarding decency are always special cases that exist outside of more traditional criminal law. Regardless, laws are always an expression of the values of a society, and (yeah, I keep saying it) we get to draw that line wherever we want. If you can acknowledge the physiological and visual differences between men and women, and the differing values attributed to somewhat similar body parts, then you have to acknowledge there is at least the potential to lay the line between male and female toplessness. I mean if that's what the majority choose, and the minority don't appear even remotely distressed or oppressed by it.

If I seem annoyed by you, it's nothing personal. I take issue with the rigid use of "logic" to dismiss cultural norms outright. Should a woman be required to hide everything but her eyes? Nah, that's nonsense. Should a woman be required to cover her sexual organs? Probably. Should a woman be required to cover her breasts in a society where these physical features are highly sexualized? Maybe. Definitely not definitely not.

 

[Bluestorm83]

I'll win this conversation right now. Every human being is hideously ugly, and I don't want to have to see any of them, including myself. As such, everyone should wear clothes 24 hours a day, and all mirrors should be broken.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I concede my first example was awful. Still, the majority dont get to use purely their feelings to make laws for the minority. Thats a point im sticking too.

Then amend my comment to this: people are allowed to wear completely transparent underwear. You can see absolutely everything, but there is no risk of any hygiene issues. Would we allow that? If we didn't, wouldn't a person be able to deploy the same inflexible reasoning you're using in this thread?

Personally? I dont see an issue with it being allowed in law as in, permitted. Im fine for cultural lines to be upheld culturally, as in, "enforced" via the opinions and reactions of others. Like i said, while i personally dont have an investment in cultural norms, i understand they are here to stay as a concept. Just keep the cultural norms rather than legal norms. There are a number of reasons i dont argue for total nudity in transparent clothing:

1. Its absurd and impractical to attempt to remove, i wont make headway and any attempt to do so is a waste of time and resources since its a very deeply ingrained norm.

2. Mainly because there is no practical reason to want to do so. Also that line applies equally to all people in said culture. There are practical uses to removing your shirt in public. Ive done so to go swimming in regular clothes. I can personally attest to it being useful in some scenarios. If its a useful act i personally use its rather hypocritical of me to declare it not useful or important enough to be legal for others to do. Anyone who removes their shirt in public as a male has admitted that theres a rational reason for doing so and it was convenient enough to use such an action. Any and all of those reasons can be applied to women too.

I live my life by two simple rules but heres the one thats relevant: Anything i do to myself or others is something they should be allowed to do to themselves or me respectively. If that makes sense? In other words if i take advantage of a liberty i lose the right to deny it to anyone in the same scenario i am in since if i can justify myself doing it any argument i make on another doing it is arguing against myself. I feel this is only fair. Its the golden rule basically but with a reversal.

I know you will rebut that its NOT the same scenario because i am male and they are female. And thats fair enough if you think said difference is significant enough to merit a different scenario. I do not. If its hot its hot. If its time to swim its time to swim.

I'd hear about brown-eyed people being denied delicious grapefruit.

Is your basis for if a law is right and wrong based on how loudly someone is complaining? Or how large the minority being denied something is? How many people minimum are necessary to be large enough to start caring about? Where is your cut off point for "Now this starts mattering". Its slightly funny that a group can be too small to count in your eyes as a minority. Since we have multiple women in this thread arguing for it theres at least a few individuals who seem to care. Take your pick.

Regardless, laws are always an expression of the values of a society, and (yeah, I keep saying it) we get to draw that line wherever we want. If you can acknowledge the physiological and visual differences between men and women, and the differing values attributed to somewhat similar body parts, then you have to acknowledge there is at least the potential to lay the line between male and female toplessness. I mean if that's what the majority choose, and the minority don't appear even remotely distressed or oppressed by it.

I disagree, we have MANY values which are not laws and MANY laws which are not cultural values but the minimal expectations needed to have any form of society at all. A law is a tool designed to protect society from harm, not to insert arbitrary values into. A value shouldnt become a law unless you can demonstrate something rational about it, i know this is "cold hard science" but in the eyes of the law your "feelings" are immaterial. You cant argue with emotion in a court of law. You need facts and evidence and a tangible demonstration of harm. The law isnt about protecting feelings nor should it be. This feels circular but you seem to be arguing that we can draw lines, then by merit of having a line we should be able to draw those lines around others then punish them for not adhering. Your line needs to have more merit than just being a line a lot of people like. Again. Women in this thread arguing for it. Theres your minority. Is it too small?

Ill agree there is a potential. I just dont see how its relevant because I dont agree with the notion the potential difference is meaningful enough to make changes in a law.

I take issue with the rigid use of "logic" to dismiss cultural norms outright. Should a woman be required to hide everything but her eyes? Nah, that's nonsense. Should a woman be required to cover her sexual organs? Probably. Should a woman be required to cover her breasts in a society where these physical features are highly sexualized? Maybe. Definitely not definitely not.

The difference between a law and a social norm is the words "or else". See if you say "I think you should pick a normal average name for your son" is different from "I think you should pick a normal average name for your son or else". If you need to enforce a social norm with institutionalised punishment you should probably stop to ask if its justified to protect society. Thats the basis of law. Well really its the size of the or else, theres the "Or else i, and others, may think poorly of you" and "Or else you pay money or go to jail".

To reiterate i have NO issues with cultural norms, I dont really invest in the lines but they are there, they WILL be there so I best try and get along with them as best I can. Issues with laws yes. Laws SHOULD be made with the rigid use of logic. Thats the basis of the majority of laws in a modern society, and I struggle to think of ANY sensible vital laws that are entirely 100% rooted in feelings with absolutely no rational basis. Even by preventing future harm.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

We don't agree. It's cool. Point by point is tiresome. Welcome to the internet, right?

I think argumentative forms have thresholds for application. You don't seem to. We will never see eye to eye.

 

[wulf3n]

Hmmm...

Spoiler

No, let's not do that. Boobs on show it is.

Haha, fair enough

 

[manic_depressive13]

I feel like there's a serious shortcoming of your university's bathroom technology if no one's giving a shit.

You misunderstand. Everyone's in it for themselves, you see. The shits are taken but rarely given. Merely another repercussion of our individualist society.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Hmmm, maybe there should be a "cup size limit" for both men and women. So if an officer isn't sure, he can stop the topless person on the street and politely ask them to try on a C cup or something, and if it fits ... on go the handcuffs!

Or people could just stop obsessing about what other people wear - or don't wear, for that matter.

Or, because arbitrary enforcement is difficult and inherently unfair based on a particular set of tastes or ideas, why not just stick with the current law? Most places don't let people in without a shirt regardless of gender or level of physical attractiveness. Not letting women take their top off in certain places where men can is silly given the difference is aesthetic. The one case where there is actually a significant functional difference, during lactation, is largely moot given the number of places that are fine with allowing a woman to breast feed in public.

 

[McKinsey]

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.

Yay, you've managed to name something science-y that is tangentially connected to some of the words I've said. Bad news for you, though: unless you see the perfect human, the one in which mind triumphs over body, as a castrated individual with tubes protruding from his veins and a dialyzer being his best friend, you've missed big time with your answer, dude. Next time try to comprehend the post before you google your bullet points.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I'm pretty sure San Fran let's you go completely naked in restaurants as long as you sit on a napkin (sanitation and all).

 

[Gilhelmi]

Breast feeding is one thing, the child needs that for nurishment. But this goes too far.

Oh well, I never wanted to visit NYC too begin with. I like the old country song, "Hell or New York City, its all the same too me."

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I have very little reason to be a patriot, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.

 

[Caiphus]

I cannot believe that women taking their clothes off has caused such strife within the Escapist community. Especially among a male-dominated community. This goes against every doodle drawing I ever made/saw in high school.

 

[Vegosiux]

I cannot believe that women taking their clothes off has caused such strife within the Escapist community. Especially among a male-dominated community. This goes against every doodle drawing I ever made/saw in high school.

Yeah, ainnit just...baffling?

Especially since it'd take care of all the duckface photos on facebook, since them ladies would likely opt to stroll naked through the streets for attention instead.

 

[Caiphus]

Yeah, ainnit just...baffling?

Especially since it'd take care of all the duckface photos on facebook, since them ladies would likely opt to stroll naked through the streets for attention instead.

I just don't know who I am anymore. The idea of a woman taking her shirt off would result in high-fives, chugs of beer, man hugs and all manner of such things among my circle of friends.

But here, there's been a lot of "Ew, breasts. No thanks." What?! Are we not meant to enjoy the occasional mammary gland? I'm confused and sad now.

Perhaps the topless-duckface will be the next step among facebook profile pictures. Goodness, surely we have now entered the twilight zone.

 

[xdiesp]

Meanwhile it's still pornography to show nipples on the internet?

 

[Darken12]

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.

Yay, you've managed to name something science-y that is tangentially connected to some of the words I've said. Bad news for you, though: unless you see the perfect human, the one in which mind triumphs over body, as a castrated individual with tubes protruding from his veins and a dialyzer being his best friend, you've missed big time with your answer, dude. Next time try to comprehend the post before you google your bullet points.

Oh, you mean transhumanism. We're getting there. Give it a few decades.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Only so far as it goes to the current line of talk where guys are saying O NOES, WE MITE HAZ TWO LOOK @ UGLEH WIMMINZ!

I'm addressing it in the specific as it relates to that reaction. But it also swings both ways. Women still have to look at an unattractive woman on the streets if she's topless. And since societally, women are supposed to regard other women's attractiveness more than men to other men (hence there being no actual equivalent to the "no homo" statement), one could even argue this has a larger effect on women.

In the end, though, a fat disgusting dude with a beer gut, moobs, and patchy hair is considered okay by society right now. If an ugly dude wants to walk down the street topless, it's okay. If an ugly woman does it? Well, that's where we entered here. Guys in this topic were saying O NOES! TEH HORRERZ!

But like I said, I'm for one standard. I'm not specifically pushing the standard that topless is okay (though honestly, I see no harm in it), I just wish the half of the species that can (and frequently does) walk around topless regardless of their attractiveness would either A) develop some modesty or B) grow up.

This is talking about a body as a whole, before anyone thinks I'm pointing out how each and every man is a certain way or something.

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.

I'ma post a big [citation needed] tag here. Especially since you don't seem to be a Native English Speaker, I'm inclined to infer that you have probably misinterpreted something.

So who is this biologist? What are his credentials? Has this work been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal? Has he provided data that allows us to validate his findings otherwise?

As of right now, I'm going with the body of evidence that says there is such a thing as a fish, scientifically speaking. It's fine if you don't want to, but "there's a scientist" doesn't fly in and of itself. Especially when making a radical claim.

and for the love of god if one you pulls out that fucking strawman of society shouldn't dictated law

Again, it's not a strawman. I, and as far as I can tell none of the others are misrepresenting you by bringing it up.

Also, threatening to flame people is probably not the best way for results.

4. seriously stop bringing up law.

Laws are relevant both to the topic at hand and to societal value (and vice versa). Lilani is bumping up against this, though I can't say if it's her primary notion. Darken touches on this in terms of inequity and the law, which is why law is brought up (it's relevant to what he's saying, to the topic, and your statements).

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.

This is the problem with addressing people as a group. I think breasts ARE sexual. Then again, I'm also in the "so what?" camp.

But again, even if I agree with your premise, it doesn't mean I can't disagree and say your math is wrong. If both of us thought evolution was right but one of us thought it was because aliens did it and the other thought it was a natural process without interference, we'd still agree on the overlying point but disagree with the details.

One big boon in this world is the ability to express nuanced thinking.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

What I wonder is if this is going to affect pop media in any way,like games.
I mean if for a woman to expose her breasts in public is OK and its her right,and women start casually walk around like that, wouldn't it be hypocritical to censor or whine for games or other stuff that features female breasts ??

I guess people would still blame the media that would feature female breasts,for being "objectifying" women,or their breasts or something. But doesn't that gets paranoid ? I mean usually art tends to include and depict aspects of real life. If this kind of thing is a part of daily life,then wouldn't it be ridiculous to demand this kind of stuff out of products ?
I guess some people whine just because they like whining.

So let me get this straight: Exposing nude breasts in public in real life is something liberating for women,its a right they have,something to be happy about,yet if this happens in any kind of product its something shameful that treats women badly ? It gets hard for me to understand the thinking here.

Still I think it's kinda hypocritical. In games you see people die,torsoes been torned apart,intestins get blown up and flying in the air,actions that are not only illegal,but also would make a normal person to throw up or get shocked if that happened in front of their eyes in real life,yet the female body is discriminated in games. Or I should say,sex appeal is discriminated ?

Because honestly,most female characters in media like that are made to be sexy. But that also stands true for male characters. And that's happening because sexy sells. Not only in games,but also movies,music,whatever. Most singers need to be attractive to get signed in a major label. Hell,some labels even put looks higher than voice and they say "its ok we can fix your out of tune voice with tools,but if you are ugly there is only that much we can do". And that's not even all of it. In many places like cafes looks is a thing employers consider on who to hire.
Is this good ? I disagree. I think people should get work based on how well they can do a job,but that's how things are,at least in a majority.

You know what ? Perhaps you don't see many men complaining about it,but men are also objectified by medias,including games too. Look how big muscles all these game protagonists have. The thing is we men tend to not give a s**t for the actual objectification,but only discover its effects and get sad or angry later on,by the effects this kind of objectification has. Because women see those role models and start believing that this image is the best,and often lots of men feel bad with theirselves for not being puffed out walking muscles. Ask the fat men. Of course many of us just spend so much time on the gym,practicing,wasting so many hours and money on diet,supplements,all that stuff,just to get acceptance and feel like we are nice looking and thus worth something.

But you see ? Both sexes get objectified. There are roles that they are brain washing to the masses that we have to follow to be cool,or look nice,or whatever. Why you don't listen men complaining about it ? or at least as much as women like Anita does ? Because usually instead of blaming the others we blame ourselves. Because instead of questioning authority (authority here being those who make up the roles) we accept that "This is the image I must have" and we just live with it,accepting that we either not going to be considered worthy enough for not being muscly enough,or changing our lifestyle,and stop doing some of our hobbies,to invest the most of our free time in excerise so we can be as the media shows us what to be,and what many women wants us to be.

Anyway,sorry for the long reply,and perhaps I went a bit off topic somewhere,but it just came to me as natural flow of thinking that I wanted to express.
I hope more freedom comes for both women and men,and that we can set our minds free and get out of them.
Have a nice day!

 

[Something Amyss]

Alright would you date a girl that actively fucked other people?

Ah, so displaying one's breasts is tantamount to infidelity. I trust that you don't "let" "your women" wear tight clothes or show their faces, then?