Topless Women Not Breaking The Law, Says NYPD

[BiscuitTrouser]

There's very little difference, functionally/rationally, between two people kissing on a park bench and two people fucking on a park bench. We allow one and not the other because we've made a decision, as a group, to draw a completely arbitrary line in the sand. That's almost all human beings do, really.

I see your point, im not arguing that we remove said lines because, as I admitted in a previous post, trying to remove all arbitrary cultural standards is a ludicrous notion.

However here for me a parallel is: a culture where its FINE for two straight people to fuck on a bench is fine, but two gay people is a no no. You have a cultural standard, but its weirdly applying to some people and not others. My point with forearms is that "Its sexy for me" is a bad argument to try and make others behave in a certain way.

And as a matter of fact i do agree with the context argument, the idea we should be able to topless anywhere at any time is silly, we dont have that now nor should we. I think in a context where a dude is entitled and expected to remove his shirt (its super freaking hot or hes going swimming in his regular clothes) a woman should be able to also because its practical. I mean yeah if they just went about it whenever in the middle of the street on a regular day thats weird. For anyone. If the argument didnt have a root in practicality i wouldnt be as invested in it. But currently we have a method of making our lives easier in certain situations and women dont. I know ALL cultural standards are arbitrary but i wouldnt mind taking the lines we have now and making them apply to ALL of society rather than 50% of it. Im fine with lines. Its when they arbitrarily squiggle around certain demographics that i raise some questions.

The moment an arbitrary cultural tradition starts making peoples lives harder, even slightly, for no logical reason ill raise objections. If its things like naming conventions and such i have no issue since it doesnt inhibit people from later making their own decisions. I know all lines are arbitrary but some lines are obviously harmful and some are obviously harmless. The former i think is worth asking "Why dont we change this?".

How does one change a cultural tradition if not to question it on a rational basis? Its how we removed other FAR more harmful ideas from our society. I know this point is reletively harmless and its hardly pressing. But its also harmless to question it for the sake of making peoples lives that tiny amount easier and granting them more autonomy. No harm in asking "Why?" right? From the sound of it you cannot shift lines in cultures, when its apparent that you can and it CAN benefit people, even if its in a tiny way.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

However here for me a parallel is: a culture where its FINE for two straight people to fuck on a bench is fine, but two gay people is a no no. You have a cultural standard, but its weirdly applying to some people and not others. My point with forearms is that "Its sexy for me" is a bad argument to try and make others behave in a certain way.

My point is that I'm not making the argument that female breasts are "sexy for me". I'm making the argument that, like it or not, female breasts are "sexy for most of us". Pretty important distinction.

And as a matter of fact i do agree with the context argument, the idea we should be able to topless anywhere at any time is silly, we dont have that now nor should we. I think in a context where a dude is entitled and expected to remove his shirt (its super freaking hot or hes going swimming in his regular clothes) a woman should be able to also because its practical. I mean yeah if they just went about it whenever in the middle of the street on a regular day thats weird. For anyone. If the argument didnt have a root in practicality i wouldnt be as invested in it. But currently we have a method of making our lives easier in certain situations and women dont. I know ALL cultural standards are arbitrary but i wouldnt mind taking the lines we have now and making them apply to ALL of society rather than 50% of it. Im fine with lines. Its when they arbitrarily squiggle around certain demographics that i raise some questions.

I guess the issue here is whether or not you're willing to admit that female breasts are reliably viewed in a highly sexual fashion by the majority of heterosexual men and homosexual women. If that's the line we're drawing, and we've decided it's not acceptable for men and women to be walking around with their genitalia on display, then a woman's breasts qualify under similar reasoning.

The moment an arbitrary cultural tradition starts making peoples lives harder, even slightly, for no logical reason ill raise objections. If its things like naming conventions and such i have no issue since it doesnt inhibit people from later making their own decisions. I know all lines are arbitrary but some lines are obviously harmful and some are obviously harmless. The former i think is worth asking "Why dont we change this?".

How does one change a cultural tradition if not to question it on a rational basis? Its how we removed other FAR more harmful ideas from our society. I know this point is reletively harmless and its hardly pressing. But its also harmless to question it for the sake of making peoples lives that tiny amount easier and granting them more autonomy. No harm in asking "Why?" right? From the sound of it you cannot shift lines in cultures, when its apparent that you can and it CAN benefit people, even if its in a tiny way.

I think because this isn't strictly a cultural thing. It feels, on some level, like an attempt to rewire our biology. We've viewed female breasts as indicators of fertility and sexuality for thousands of years. 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? If she can have her sexy, alluring, shapely breasts out where everyone can see them, what's the harm in displaying my equally sexy, alluring, shapely dong?

Again, we draw lines. And if we're not oppressing people in the process, we're probably not doing anything unforgivable. As someone else pointed out, women aren't exactly chomping at the bit to release their girls for anyone and everyone's viewing pleasure. If we were fighting back the topless hordes or clipping girls' shifts to their pants against their will, I'd be a lot more inclined to buy any sort of liberation bent in this discussion. Instead, it really does feel more like "gender equality" gone overboard. It's okay for there to be differences between men and women, and for those differences to result in slightly different rules here and there.

 

[Darken12]

It feels, on some level, like an attempt to rewire our biology.

We rewire biology (ours and that of pretty much every single organism around us) every single day. The entirety of the world is our plaything.

 

[Altorin]

this is the most boring thread about breasts I've ever read.

you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

shame shame shame.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

It feels, on some level, like an attempt to rewire our biology.

We rewire biology (ours and that of pretty much every single organism around us) every single day. The entirety of the world is our plaything.

Unless the vast majority of us decide against it. Then no.

Sort of a circular argument, but that's kind of the point here, right? We can decide to change or not change. Hell, sometimes we even revert.

 

[Darken12]

Unless the vast majority of us decide against it. Then no.

Sort of a circular argument, but that's kind of the point here, right? We can decide to change or not change. Hell, sometimes we even revert.

I completely agree.

But we can, if we choose to. And that's the basis of progress.

 

[DragonStorm247]

YEAH, TITS! ... I mean ... yeah equality!

 

[MetalMagpie]

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.

I don't have especially large boobs (B cup - if that means anything to you) and I still find it uncomfortable to run without a bra on. The weight tugs on the skin at the top of my chest and... yeah, it feels weird and awkward. Even a sports bra doesn't eliminate bounce, but it keeps it under control.

I know from larger-breasted friends that once you get up to DD cups, any sort of movement can start to be a bit uncomfortable without some sort of support. Lounging on a beach or swimming is fine (where the water supports them), but you wouldn't want to run for a bus.

And while we're on the subject, here are some helpful pointers for video game/anime animators: When boobs bounce, they tend to do so as one unit. They don't normally wobble around independently from each other. Boobs are also generally teardrop shaped rather than completely spherical (unless they're fake) and will only have a crease at the top when being pushed up by a bra (again, unless they're fake). And nipples point slightly outward, not straight ahead.

On the other hand, boobs can come in a huge variety of shapes and sizes. So maybe some of the weirder ones I've seen are just indicative of what the animator's girlfriend looks like!

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

My point is that I'm not making the argument that female breasts are "sexy for me". I'm making the argument that, like it or not, female breasts are "sexy for most of us". Pretty important distinction.

I guess the issue here is whether or not you're willing to admit that female breasts are reliably viewed in a highly sexual fashion by the majority of heterosexual men and homosexual women. If that's the line we're drawing, and we've decided it's not acceptable for men and women to be walking around with their genitalia on display, then a woman's breasts qualify under similar reasoning.

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? If she can have her sexy, alluring, shapely breasts out where everyone can see them, what's the harm in displaying my equally sexy, alluring, shapely dong

Again, we draw lines. And if we're not oppressing people in the process, we're probably not doing anything unforgivable. As someone else pointed out, women aren't exactly chomping at the bit to release their girls for anyone and everyone's viewing pleasure. If we were fighting back the topless hordes or clipping girls' shifts to their pants against their will, I'd be a lot more inclined to buy any sort of liberation bent in this discussion. Instead, it really does feel more like "gender equality" gone overboard. It's okay for there to be differences between men and women, and for those differences to result in slightly different rules here and there.

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.

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:

"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.

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

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.

 

[nuba km]

In a joyous moment for gender equality.

I disagree with this statement, as if men had testicles instead of nipples on their chests, they would too have to wear a shirt in public (at least in communities were testicles are considered something that shouldn't be exposed in public which is most of them). So either allow both genders to expose a equal proportion of their sexual organs or not.

 

[Darken12]

In a joyous moment for gender equality.

I disagree with this statement, as if men had testicles instead of nipples on their chests, they would too have to wear a shirt in public (at least in communities were testicles are considered something that shouldn't be exposed in public which is most of them). So either allow both genders to expose a equal proportion of their sexual organs or not.

Allow me to quote myself:

You do realise that mammaries are not genitals, right? They are secondary sexual characteristics, not primary, and some men (a not insignificant number) have a pretty significant cleavage going on, whether it's because they work out a lot and their pecs are huge or because they're very overweight. And there's no lewdness in a man exposing his breasts in public (which, of course, are just as capable of lactation as women. Male galactorrhea is a well documented condition). So if men are allowed to parade their breasts around as they see fit (and those breasts can have the same size and functionality as a woman's), then I fail to see why it's lewd if women do it.

 

[The Lunatic]

... This is apparently a big deal?


... Okay.

I mean, I really don't understand the cheering here.

It's "Equal rights" because a law that didn't exist in the first place, isn't existing?


... Uhm. So, nothing has changed?

 

[Miyenne]

Eh. It's legal here, but I never see it. Or I do and it just doesn't register. I've never found boobs to be sexual, oddly. When guys are grabby with them I'm just like "Uh-huh, yeah, move on please." They just don't do anything for me, and I know I'm not the only one. But for some reason guys love 'em so we go along with it.

Would I go around topless? Probably not. But I wear a long sleeved shirt even in +30C or warmer weather because I burn very easily and badly, and I have that stupid allergy to the sun where if I'm exposed my skin gets bumpy and itchy as hell. And with larger boobs, I find a bra more comfortable. I hate it when it gets sweaty underneath them. Hate that feeling.

Otherwise, I'm glad people are starting to move forward. I really don't care what someone looks like or does, unless they're dressing to be sexual, rather than just going topless or very little clothing for comfort in the heat. There is a difference, and there is a time and a place to dress for sexual attention. But that's more read from body language than the clothing, unless someone's wearing fishnets or leather.

Not everyone finds boobs sexy. Some people do. I don't understand this covering ourselves up thing, honestly. I find men's wide shoulders and large hands sexy. Should I ask men to cover themselves up because they're stimulating me? Only fair.

Or does this have something to do with the fact that men can't hide sexual arousal, but women can?

 

[The Lunatic]

Or does this have something to do with the fact that men can't hide sexual arousal, but women can?

I guess you could say, we're pretty boned in that department.

 

[Miyenne]

I guess you could say, we're pretty boned in that department.

Okay, that made me giggle.

 

[nuba km]

In a joyous moment for gender equality.

I disagree with this statement, as if men had testicles instead of nipples on their chests, they would too have to wear a shirt in public (at least in communities were testicles are considered something that shouldn't be exposed in public which is most of them). So either allow both genders to expose a equal proportion of their sexual organs or not.

Allow me to quote myself:

You do realise that mammaries are not genitals, right? They are secondary sexual characteristics, not primary, and some men (a not insignificant number) have a pretty significant cleavage going on, whether it's because they work out a lot and their pecs are huge or because they're very overweight. And there's no lewdness in a man exposing his breasts in public (which, of course, are just as capable of lactation as women. Male galactorrhea is a well documented condition). So if men are allowed to parade their breasts around as they see fit (and those breasts can have the same size and functionality as a woman's), then I fail to see why it's lewd if women do it.

because society, its stupid I know but men boobs are (as far as the common person is considered) not sexual in fact owning them has the opposite effect of female boobs in a lot of cases. Like money certain values only exist as far as we attribute them, hence if men boobs were considered sexual society would have made us cover them up. I mean in many African countries boobs aren't considered sexual and hence no one has a problem with woman having them out all the time. When it comes to most 1st world countries, female boobs, penie(or is it penises), vaginas, testicles and butts are considered sexual and hence are all covered up. Not that I agree with this, I have nothing against nudity, all I am saying is a topless man isn't the same as a topless woman until female boobs are no longer sexual. I also say woman being allowed to wear trousers wasn't a moment of gender equality because men could still not wear skirts and dresses.

Also I spotted another argument your having about differences in genders and humans like, cows(and close relatives), peacocks, lions and many species of spiders their is a genetic difference in the genders. The extent of these differences can be disputed but men have wider shoulders are more likely to have their ring finger longer then their index finger and grow beards. History(e.g. world records) has shown men are faster and stronger then woman and that woman are more dexterities then men while a lot of this is most likely down to society I imagine that if box plots were to be made even 100 years form now that each gender would have its physical advantages.

 

[Darken12]

... This is apparently a big deal?


... Okay.

I mean, I really don't understand the cheering here.

It's "Equal rights" because a law that didn't exist in the first place, isn't existing?


... Uhm. So, nothing has changed?

There are actually two sections of the penal law that police officers could invoke to arrest a topless woman. From the NYT article I cite in the OP:

"Officers ?shall not enforce any section of law, including penal law sections 245.00 (public lewdness) and 245.01 (exposure of a person) against female individuals who are simply exposing their breasts in public.?"

Apparently, it was possible for police officers to invoke those sections of penal law in order to arrest a topless woman. Furthermore, the article goes into detail about a woman who commonly protested topless, and was taken into psychiatric evaluation by the police due to her choice of attire.

 

[Flames66]

Good idea. We'll get on NYPD to implement a law that says "You must be at least this attractive to go topless in public."

Nice try, meant both sexes should cover up in public. Not to mention attractiveness can not be quantified.

Are you kidding? How can you possibly care about such minutiae as wage gaps, child custody and employment when there are children STARVING in Africa? God, first world problems or what.

Wait, wait, forget that. How small-minded can you be, to obsess over silly little things like children starving in Africa when the sun is dying AS WE SPEAK, moving towards its inevitable death, and with the death of the sun the planet will grow cold and empty of life, and be just another barren rock floating without meaning through the endless expanse of space. Why does no one seem to care about that?

Africa is not our country, and the sun will likely die millions of years after humanity dies. But nice attempt at derailing. please try to stay on topic.

I think the point of his statement is that this is progress towards gender equality. It may be a very small amount of progress compared to the size of the problem, but it is progress and should be celebrated. In my mind an example of how your previous statement read would be if during the civil rights movement someone said this:

"It is now acceptable for a black person to refuse to give up their seat to a white person on a bus. This is not fully eradicating prejudice against black people therefore should not have happened."

Any amount of progress is positive. I agree that it should happen quicker (if that is what you are getting at), but it takes time to change how a massive society views things. This is a sign that things are moving in the right direction.

 

[Darken12]

*snip*

So your argument hinges on a self-perpetuating circular logic grounded on traditionalism. Got it. Already had that argument on this thread.

I also already tackled the "sex-based differences" thing to death, in this thread and many others. If you want to talk about that, shoot me a PM. It's not really on topic for this thread.

 

[The Lunatic]

There are actually two sections of the penal law that police officers could invoke to arrest a topless woman. From the NYT article I cite in the OP:

"Officers ?shall not enforce any section of law, including penal law sections 245.00 (public lewdness) and 245.01 (exposure of a person) against female individuals who are simply exposing their breasts in public.?"

Apparently, it was possible for police officers to invoke those sections of penal law in order to arrest a topless woman. Furthermore, the article goes into detail about a woman who commonly protested topless, and was taken into psychiatric evaluation by the police due to her choice of attire.

Yeah, except not really.

Those laws do not apply exclusively to women who have their breasts out. They apply to anyone who disrobes themselves.

The issue here was:

"Hey, some officers aren't sure what this law covers".

"Well, we can't be seen to not enforce the law".

"Well, that's not the law."

"Oh, right, okay then."

And that's it.

There was no law preventing woman from being topless, there was confusion over the exact ruling. Because, not many people are sure what the exact level of nudity it is for a woman to be topless. We don't show it on TV that often, especially not compared to how often a guy is topless, because, it's still a bit taboo.

The instance you cite, seems impossibly black and white, and is only one instance, and again, any sense of "This person is naked" comes from the confusion of the law, which has now been cleared up.