Topless Women Not Breaking The Law, Says NYPD

[John Dore]

I'm all for gender equality...problem is most women don't actually want equality... they want special consideration. You want true equality than meet the same standards as men... Police, fire, military for example.... They scream "we are equal, ....but...can you lower the standards so we can get into the same jobs...OH and BTW we want the same pay or a physical job that I have no capability of doing...." Example... I get called out ALL the time to help girls do some heavy lifting.... We get paid the same...but im the one throwing my back out, b/c "im a girl..i can't lift that" ...well then give me extra money for doing more work... Oh that's sexist?? makes sense /s.

And I laugh when I see a woman stepping to a guy thinking he won't touch her and he knocks the hell out of her... there is your gender equality.

SUARSETS:
This post is so on-topic for this thread. I can't even begin to tell you how on-topic it is. It's so refreshing, after seeing many people just use any mention of the words "gender equality" to go off on their own strange rants about things that are barely even tangentially related to the subject being discussed, to have a poster like you come in - with the precision of a surgeon - and just strike right at the heart of the matter. Your ellipses, also, are like tiny havens within which to meditate upon each new thought as you deliver it.

Thank you. Bless you.[/quote]


You're....very....welcome
PS. Had to do some editing on limited time

 

[Shinsei-J]

I always assumed that public nudity was pretty much legal as long as you're not going around jerkin'/flickin' it.

I actually don't know ether.
Thinking about it, it'd seem like that would be the case.
Hmm, but if that was the case then why would it be considered lewd for a female to be shirtless in the first place?
I'm a little confused now, is nudity an all or nothing kind of deal?

 

[Froggy Slayer]

I always assumed that public nudity was pretty much legal as long as you're not going around jerkin'/flickin' it.

I actually don't know ether.
Thinking about it, it'd seem like that would be the case.
Hmm, but if that was the case then why would it be considered lewd for a female to be shirtless in the first place?
I'm a little confused now, is nudity an all or nothing kind of deal?

Well, I think that it partially depends on the place. I'm British, so no one would go nude because they don't want to die of frostbite, but when I go on holiday to warmer European countries I see people in various states of undress up to and including fully nude and no one bats an eyelid.

 

[Darken12]

To all the anti-feminists:

1. why my argument is circular, because frankly I don't see your logic behind that beyond not wanting to address any points in it.
2. anything at all in my entire post

Your argument is "this should be considered lewd because female breasts are considered sexual, and they're considered sexual because they're considered sexual." That's circular logic.

I'm not addressing the rest of your post because I have already done so in the thread. If you cannot be bothered to read the thread, I cannot be bothered to repeat myself.

You can't argue with nature.

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. You might have heard of it.

it would distract a helluva lot of dudes. Like, on a daily basis. Forever.

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.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Wow that's something progressive. Something I weren't expecting to happen so soon anyway.
But if women started walking around with their breasts in plain view,I think that the breasts as erotic zones of the female body would be de-sexualized somewhat. You know... Usually this kind of view turns men up. But a bit of that erotic enthusiasm that erupts when someone is seeing breasts is because its not something that happens all the time. If that was the norm and walking to a nearby park made you see so many women's breasts,then it would kind of loose its specialness,right ?

 

[Vegosiux]

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. You might have heard of it.

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".

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.

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.

It's not even that bad. If you keep seeing bare boobs around you all the time, they stop being a novelty and/or distracting. Or well, at worst, they're pretty much on the same level as any other, non-breast-related distraction that might make you crash your car.

 

[KeyMaster45]

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.

The first rule of public restrooms is do not talk in public restrooms.
The second rule of public restrooms is do not talk in fucking public restrooms.

(on an anecdotal note I once had the discomfort of the guy at the urinal next to me carrying on a conversation on his blu-tooth headset while staring down at his junk. At least I hope there was someone on the other end of that headset and he wasn't just talking to his dick)

OT: Yay? There's really not much more to say, other than maybe good luck to the brave women who think they won't draw attention to themselves walking around topless in New York. I'm all for poking the bear of gender inequality but this is one I wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

 

[randomrob]

I would rather that everyone wore clothes on both their top and their bottom halves. But seeing as I live in a country where it's too cold for this sort of shit to be an issue, it really doesn't make all that much difference to me.

 

[TheKrigeron]

They're taking that equality thing a bit too litterally...

 

[Shinsei-J]

I actually don't know ether.
Thinking about it, it'd seem like that would be the case.
Hmm, but if that was the case then why would it be considered lewd for a female to be shirtless in the first place?
I'm a little confused now, is nudity an all or nothing kind of deal?

Well, I think that it partially depends on the place. I'm British, so no one would go nude because they don't want to die of frostbite, but when I go on holiday to warmer European countries I see people in various states of undress up to and including fully nude and no one bats an eyelid.

I've heard before that European countries are pretty lax about it, though my query is about Australia.
Seems like the perfect place to get stark or just topless but I don't think I've ever seen it and I've lived here for all 18 years of my life. Thirteen of them less than ten minutes away from one of the nicest beaches in the country and not even once.
I just figured something must be stopping women from being naked in public.

 

[keniakittykat]

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!

Amen to you, sir! I would LOVE to go toppless on hot days. (I live in a rural town in the Netherlands, so no one raises an eyebrow when I lie toppless sunbathing by the fishing pond) Breasts on warm days are sweaty, sticky and downright unpleasant to have locked inside a shirt. (I stopped wearing a bra on hot days a long time ago)

And if we just accept and teach that breasts are no big deal and just as normal as a man's torso, than in a few years the controversy will be obsolete. Sure men will be men, but they perv on women even with shirts, so there'll be little change.

 

[Lilani]

Im just thinking how traumatized males are going to be when they see an elderly woman whose breasts point all the way south.

I hope the psych ward in NYC has plenty of room!

Only as traumatized as all the females who have had to deal with elderly men and their hairy, wrinkly, saggy chests

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

So 50% of the population being punished by law for dressing in the same way the other 50% is allowed to dress isn't a problem? Equality of personal choice is useless?

 

[ninjaRiv]

What? I can't hear you, I'm on a plane to new York!

Seriously, though, this seems kind of silly. Boobies are sexual, right? Are men's chests as sexual? I mean... I don't think so. I mean, they are very attractive but I think of lady bags as closer to sexual organs.

Maybe I'm wrong/of a different opinion in that respect. I am happy for tatas, though. Woo!

 

[Froggy Slayer]

I actually don't know ether.
Thinking about it, it'd seem like that would be the case.
Hmm, but if that was the case then why would it be considered lewd for a female to be shirtless in the first place?
I'm a little confused now, is nudity an all or nothing kind of deal?

Well, I think that it partially depends on the place. I'm British, so no one would go nude because they don't want to die of frostbite, but when I go on holiday to warmer European countries I see people in various states of undress up to and including fully nude and no one bats an eyelid.

I've heard before that European countries are pretty lax about it, though my query is about Australia.
Seems like the perfect place to get stark or just topless but I don't think I've ever seen it and I've lived here for all 18 years of my life. Thirteen of them less than ten minutes away from one of the nicest beaches in the country and not even once.
I just figured something must be stopping women from being naked in public.

I'd assume that it's the variety of venomous animals. If I lived in Australia I'd spend every day in a hazmat suit.

 

[Lilani]

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.

It is not the role of the law to stand up for and uphold societal stigmas. It isn't illegal to swear or make profane gestures, and unless it qualifies as harassment or a threat you can't get the authorities to make people stop doing these things. If you have a problem with them, you are free to look the other way or remove yourself from the situation. It is the role of laws to keep us safe, not to make sure we aren't put into situations that make us a bit uncomfortable.

Because if the law was to keep us from being uncomfortable, I'd make a law against people talking to retailers, waiters, or anyone else working in the customer service industry about conspiracies, religion, politics, or anything else they feel strongly about that might launch them into a tirade. There's nothing more uncomfortable than being bound by the obligations of providing good customer service to listen to some random person rave on about the pharmaceutical industry for 10 minutes while there are others behind them who are waiting to be helped.

And as for the post you made before this one, as has been pointed out to you already female breasts are categorized the same as male breasts when it comes to which parts of the anatomy have sexual functions, as secondary sexual organs. Breasts are not comparable to testicles in this way because you don't have sex with them.

 

[Wafflemarine]

Car accidents I see a sharp rise in car accidents and awkward tent raising.

 

[Lilani]

... 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?

No they haven't changed any "laws" by making anything new legal or illegal, but they have changed a pretty major distinction within their laws. The lewdness and public indecency laws still exist, New York is just making it to where exposed female breasts are no longer violations of these laws. So no laws changed, per se, but it is in effect legalizing female toplessness. So yeah, a pretty big deal actually.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

Yes, dance my puppets! Save me money on life drawing practice!
(Seriously, though, that really is the only thing I care about random people walking around for.)

I've really never understood how some people can be so freaked out by naked skin.

 

[Azriel Nightshade]

Here's hoping that when some dumbass decides to try and grop a topless lady on the street, he get that swift NYPD justice and by justice I mean police brutality.

 

[Shinsei-J]

I actually don't know ether.
Thinking about it, it'd seem like that would be the case.
Hmm, but if that was the case then why would it be considered lewd for a female to be shirtless in the first place?
I'm a little confused now, is nudity an all or nothing kind of deal?

Well, I think that it partially depends on the place. I'm British, so no one would go nude because they don't want to die of frostbite, but when I go on holiday to warmer European countries I see people in various states of undress up to and including fully nude and no one bats an eyelid.

I've heard before that European countries are pretty lax about it, though my query is about Australia.
Seems like the perfect place to get stark or just topless but I don't think I've ever seen it and I've lived here for all 18 years of my life. Thirteen of them less than ten minutes away from one of the nicest beaches in the country and not even once.
I just figured something must be stopping women from being naked in public.

I'd assume that it's the variety of venomous animals. If I lived in Australia I'd spend every day in a hazmat suit.

Fair call,
but after a while of living here I don't think anyone really gives a flying fuck about venom, at that point you'd probably be put off more by the hundreds of flys. In Australia you drink some concrete and toughen the fuck up or leave. Even my arachnophobic brother can deal with venomous spiders, he will go into shock for a few minutes afterwards but it will be dealt with.