Topless Women Not Breaking The Law, Says NYPD

[BathorysGraveland2]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Breasts have much more important functions than just being sexual, such as breast feeding. Makes no real sense for there to be any kind of law against women being topless in public except for religious reasons (which I don't consider valid).

 

[Darken12]

don't care about tradition, but this decision does not help society in any way, shape, or form and is therefore useless.

I also recognize that change for the sake of change (rather than progress) is extremely dangerous.

First of all, this isn't a law. The police was issued a clarification on a legal matter.

Second of all, this is traditionalism, because your argument hinges on society stigmatising a woman's bare breasts as lewd or indecent. Your argument is "it's okay for men to walk around topless because there is no stigma against male breasts, but there is a stigma against female breasts." That argument hinges on societal traditions. Presumably, if society had no stigma against female breasts, you wouldn't make that argument.

Thirdly, some people (myself included) consider this a very positive thing for society, as we see it as a strike against society's policing of women's bodies, which allows them fairness and equal standing under the eyes of the law in another place of society. It may be a small and unimportant place of society, but for us, it's a victory nonetheless (which may, in the future, contribute to furthering gender equality in other areas).

EDIT:

Oh my god. [http://youtu.be/xNUZQzJKBgQ?t=1m26s]

Well played. Very well played. *slow clap*

 

[bigwon]

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!

 

[Ryotknife]

don't care about tradition, but this decision does not help society in any way, shape, or form and is therefore useless.

I also recognize that change for the sake of change (rather than progress) is extremely dangerous.

First of all, this isn't a law. The police was issued a clarification on a legal matter.

Second of all, this is traditionalism, because your argument hinges on society stigmatising a woman's bare breasts as lewd or indecent. Your argument is "it's okay for men to walk around topless because there is no stigma against male breasts, but there is a stigma against female breasts." That argument hinges on societal traditions. Presumably, if society had no stigma against female breasts, you wouldn't make that argument.

Thirdly, some people (myself included) consider this a very positive thing for society, as we see it as a strike against society's policing of women's bodies, which allows them fairness and equal standing under the eyes of the law in another place of society. It may be a small and unimportant place of society, but for us, it's a victory nonetheless (which may, in the future, contribute to furthering gender equality in other areas).

I love how you keep ignoring half of my argument. I would be morally okay if they wanted to tackle the stigma associated with body parts IF they tackled them all. What they are doing now is sending a weird mixed message that some stigmas associated with body parts are okay, and some are not, with no real distinction between the two.

Either the sexual stigma associated with bodies parts is wrong, or it is not. This is just half assed. Personally, I could jump on either bandwagon so long as its consistent.

 

[Darken12]

I love how you keep ignoring half of my argument. I would be morally okay if they wanted to tackle the stigma associated with body parts IF they tackled them all. What they are doing now is sending a weird mixed message that some stigmas associated with body parts are okay, and some are not, with no real distinction between the two.

Either the sexual stigma associated with bodies parts is wrong, or it is not. This is just half assed. Personally, I could jump on either bandwagon so long as its consistent.

And you, in turn, are completely missing the point of this clarification, and why people consider it a good thing. It's not because they're making a statement on body parts. It's because the law is being enforced equally regardless of gender. That's what's being discussed here. If it's not lewd for a man to walk around shirtless regardless of his breast size, it shouldn't be lewd for a woman either. This isn't making a statement on lewdness itself, or on body parts, or on whether we should criminalise public exposure of body parts.

It's making a statement on applying the law equally regardless of gender. That's what this is about.

 

[Ryotknife]

don't care about tradition, but this decision does not help society in any way, shape, or form and is therefore useless.

And arresting women for showing their breasts helps society by ... um...

I also recognize that change for the sake of change (rather than progress) is extremely dangerous.

Oh my god. [http://youtu.be/xNUZQzJKBgQ?t=1m26s]

Shall I tell you a story?

This story involves someone promoted to a high management position in a government agency. His experience for this job was...suspect to begin with. So, to validate his job, he decide to make radical changes in how the budget was used. Instead of using the budget to make sure that agency operations went smoothly, he decided to use it to build parks, hoping that this shift in thinking will set him on the short path to success.

Well, there wasn't enough money in the budget for the agency to do one of the tasks they were responsible for (maintence of waterways), as such the businesses who depended on that had to shut down. The levies imposed on thos businesses that agency's budget depend on as a result floundered.

change is fine as long as there is a good reason for it. Changing things just for shits and giggles is dangerous.

Or a more recent example, NY safe act. The stated goal was not to improve the gun violence situation, but to get some kind of legislation out before Obama had the chance so the state politicians could steal the spotlight.

 

[Ryotknife]

I love how you keep ignoring half of my argument. I would be morally okay if they wanted to tackle the stigma associated with body parts IF they tackled them all. What they are doing now is sending a weird mixed message that some stigmas associated with body parts are okay, and some are not, with no real distinction between the two.

Either the sexual stigma associated with bodies parts is wrong, or it is not. This is just half assed. Personally, I could jump on either bandwagon so long as its consistent.

So if there was an irrational social stigma against, say, men (and only men) showing their hair, you would support a law to arrest men for not wearing headscarves when out in public?

You say that there's no point in change unless it's for the sake of progress, but A) for about the fifth time, this is not a change being made - this was already the law, the NYPD just reminded their officers of it, and B) even if it were a change, it would be for the sake of progress against a double standard, and therefore justified by your own argument.

Now, I'm sure you could attempt another derail and try to use the long-since-exhausted-and-so-old-it's-starting-to-smell refutation of "but there are BIGGER problems in society, so why do people care about this?" In which case you should probably ask yourself ... why do you care so much? After all, you're the only one sounding the rallying cry for change. Everyone else is just expressing satisfaction with the law as it currently is.

Unless you can come up with a rational reason why women showing their breasts in public causes harm to society, you should probably just accept that this is how things are in New York and move on.

If this stigma has been around for a long time and ingrained into society? sure. I don't see how this stigma is any less illogical than the ones associated with the butt, vagina, penis, or breasts.

As for the harm comment. It causes the same kind of harm as exposure of penis, vagina, or ass causes. If exposing breast does not harm society, then neither does the exposure of those. It offends people's sensitivities, just like certain symbols offend people.

Would it offend mine? no, or at least its too late to offend my sensitivies on the topic thanks to men's locker rooms in gyms. The older generation especially seem to have an exhibitionist streak

 

[manic_depressive13]

Perhaps if it was empty when you went in, but are you going to tell me with a straight face that if you walked into a women's restroom while it had a bunch of women in there they'd be totally fine with it?

I'm aware it's not technically illegal, but if you didn't immediately leave then at least one of the women would try to call police/security to get you seized on grounds of being a sexual predator (even though you're not).

Anyone who finds a guy in a women's bathroom is going to judge you on the fucking spot no matter what your reasons may be, it could really suck!
Obviously if a woman was found in a men's bathroom then guys would be quite polite to her, asking if she was confused/lost. Or if she was really desperate to use the toilet, they'd most likely even let her use it. But in the opposite situation I guarantee you at least some degree of shit will hit the fan if women are around, beware!

Do you seriously believe that? If I was in the bathroom when a man walked in I would assume he made a mistake, or his bathroom was full, or his bathroom was dirty, or he just walked into the first bathroom he found because he was busting.

And I wouldn't give a shit. Nobody would give a shit. There are a few unisex bathrooms at my uni and, you guessed it, no one gives a shit.

This idea that women would turn into squealing animals if a man walked into their bathroom, screaming 'pervert' and beating him with their handbags, is just a load of bullshit perpetuated by the media. I don't know whether to be insulted or embarrassed on your behalf that you would buy into such a silly stereotype.

 

[Kolby Jack]

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.

 

[Sandernista]

That's awesome, I'm very curious as to what other hilarious things will happen in the name of gender equality. I reckon men should be allowed to walk into women's restrooms (and vice versa), I mean we're all the same right?

It's not illegal, and if the men's bathroom is full I will go and use the female one. I don't see any problem with that at all.

Perhaps if it was empty when you went in, but are you going to tell me with a straight face that if you walked into a women's restroom while it had a bunch of women in there they'd be totally fine with it?

Just because our society has a stigma against it does not make it wrong.

I'm aware it's not technically illegal, but if you didn't immediately leave then at least one of the women would try to call police/security to get you seized on grounds of being a sexual predator (even though you're not).

I've never encountered this, although I've only used the women's bathroom maybe one or two dozen times.

Anyone who finds a guy in a women's bathroom is going to judge you on the fucking spot no matter what your reasons may be, it could really suck!

Anyone who finds a man with head to toe tattoos is going to judge you on the fucking spot no matter what your reasons may be, it could really suck!

Anyone who finds a guy with green hair is going to judge you on the fucking spot no matter what your reasons may be, it could really suck!

Anyone who finds a democrat is going to judge you on the fucking spot no matter what your reasons may be, it could really suck!

Obviously if a woman was found in a men's bathroom then guys would be quite polite to her, asking if she was confused/lost.

I think the most like scenario is that she is entirely ignored. I have never encountered anyone who talks in the bathroom, I believe that stigma is as great as gendered bathrooms.

But in the opposite situation I guarantee you at least some degree of shit will hit the fan if women are around, beware!

It's ideas like this that perpetuate these silly stigma.

 

[Ryotknife]

If this stigma has been around for a long time and ingrained into society? sure. I don't see how this stigma is any less illogical than the ones associated with the butt, vagina, penis, or breasts.

As for the harm comment. It causes the same kind of harm as exposure of penis, vagina, or ass causes. If exposing breast does not harm society, then neither does the exposure of those. It offends people's sensitivities, just like certain symbols offend people.

Swearing has a social stigma. It earns movies about the same rating as boobs does. Swearing is not illegal.

I mean, what are you arguing here? That you think full nudity in public should be legal as well? Sure, if you want to fight for that change as well then more power to you. I'd say it's probably going to get a bit confusing when you're simultaneously demanding the law be changed so that women are forced to cover up and arguing that the law should be changed so that full nudity is legal, but I'm sure you've got it all sorted out in your head.

Would it offend mine? no, or at least its too late to offend my sensitivies on the topic thanks to men's locker rooms in gyms.

So if you're not offended ... why are you so intent on arguing for a change to the law? You've said that you don't believe in change for the sake of change sooo ... what progress do you think changing NY law to make it illegal for women to go topless would achieve? Is change for the sake of regress OK?

Change for the sake of progress is fine. This is not progress. If the goal was to eliminate the stigma associated with body parts (which I would be okay with btw), that would be fine. It would be an awkward phase ill admit, but in the end for the better of society. However, by implementing a law that says one stigma (out of the list of equivalent stigmas) is okay, it reinforces the legitimacy of the other stigmas. (before you yell at me Darken, this appears to be a law that no one knew about, not even the police)

For example, it would be like saying...black/white interracial couples are okay, but everything else is off limits. It implies that there is legitimacy to preventing interracial couples rather than just calling it all BS.

 

[Darken12]

However, by implementing a law that says one stigma (out of the list of equivalent stigmas) is okay, it reinforces the legitimacy of the other stigmas.

You keep deliberately misconstruing the point. This isn't implementing a law. This isn't a statement on stigmas. This isn't a statement on lewdness. This isn't a legitimisation of other stigmas. This is about equal treatment under the eyes of the law.

You are debating something that nobody's debating, or even touching with a ten-foot pole.

 

[FireAza]

In a joyous moment for gender equality, the NYPD is reminded that women may go topless in any place that allows men to go shirtless.

A joyous moment for men too

But seriously, say this law became commonplace across America. Do you think in say, 100 years time, Americans would no longer see female breasts as sexually arousing? I mean, back in Victorian England, seeing a woman in what we would consider a very conservative bathing suit was considered lewd, so they would bathe surrounded by a tent. Cut to today where woman wear bikinis, an article of clothing that pretty much just covers the nipples and genitals.

This might be a case of "things are sexy because we rarely see them"

 

[Ryotknife]

Change for the sake of progress is fine. This is not progress.

Um ... dude? How long are you going to keep ignoring this? It was the entire point of my last post. Should I put it in bold?

You are the only person in this thread arguing for change.

The law already allows women to go topless in New York. You are saying that it should be changed, whilst at the same time arguing against change. You're effectively trying to refute your own argument.

Look, this is all very easy to clear up. Let me give you an example of how you can do it with dignity:

Oh, I misread the news story and thought that it said the law was being changed. Now I see that in fact the law hasn't changed at all, officers have simply been reminded of it. Well, in that case, I realise that all of the arguments that I've been making are a result of that early misunderstanding, and as a result I retract them and wish you all a very good day.

See? Very simple, and a lot less awkward than what you're doing right now.

No, im saying that it doesn't go far enough. Whether the law is on the books or not doesn't really matter in this case as most of the people of NY are not aware of this law (and this news is therefore seen as a new law). Now, some individuals will oftentimes not be aware of X law, but in this case it is the vast majority, including the police. If the police aren't even aware of the law, then whether the law is on the books or not is just a matter of formality. Just like there was a law in California which said that a woman can not be raped unless she is married, a law that even judges were not aware that it existed (until the defense found it) and as such were forced to let a rapist go free. Does that make that law right?

But fine, yippie breasts everywhere. And the puritan beliefs of the US march on.

 

[Darken12]

In a joyous moment for gender equality, the NYPD is reminded that women may go topless in any place that allows men to go shirtless.

A joyous moment for men too

But seriously, say this law became commonplace across America. Do you think in say, 100 years time, Americans would no longer see female breasts as sexually arousing? I mean, back in Victorian England, seeing a woman in what we would consider a very conservative bathing suit was considered lewd, so they would bathe surrounded by a tent. Cut to today where woman wear bikinis, an article of clothing that pretty much just covers the nipples and genitals.

This might be a case of "things are sexy because we rarely see them"

There are plenty of societies where it's quite commonplace for women to go topless. I would link the wikipedia article that cites examples, but it has pictures of topless women and might therefore be against forum rules. Look for toplessness on wikipedia if you want to know which societies in particular.

That said, women and men who like men see barechested men all the time and most of them still find male abs/pecs/nipples to be extremely sexy. Have butts become less sexy since it became socially acceptable to wear thongs and other skimpy outfits in public?