[Orion27]

Why not? just in keeping with individual rights and freedoms. The neighborhood store
check-out gal, the dry cleaner, your baby sitter. I think the 9th circuit in California would
approve don't you? Or do you think only curmudeonly, christian conseervatives would disapprove? Quite frankly how entertaining. The federal suite has been filed.

[xi_hyperon]

Gotta problem with breasts?

[dampeoples]

Why not, some men have just as much as some women. I just think that they should be required to shave their underarms first...

[macvillage.net]

Women just offically won through the courts the right to breastfeed outside of designated areas and their own homes.

Doubt it will happen anytime soon (thanks in part to Janet Jackson).


I personally don't see what the big deal is. It's skin Just like what's on people's hands, face, back, feet, legs.

Anyone who really makes a breast, which is a mere organ to faciliate nurishment to a child... into something that MUST be sexual... should get some help. If your that twisted, your most likely going to turn into a serial rapist at some point. If you can't view a functional body part without thinking about sex instantaniously... it's a very serious issue.


The mouth, hands, could also be viewed as sexual no?

But we don't go so far as to require by law they be covered up.

The only difference is the breast can feed a child.

Grow up America. Or get help. Which ever is appropriate for you.

[TheWorldIsFlat]

Anyone want to join the Male Breastfeeders For Sexual Equality Movement?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Anyone who really makes a breast, which is a mere organ to faciliate nurishment to a child... into something that MUST be sexual... should get some help. If your that twisted, your most likely going to turn into a serial rapist at some point

If you can't view a functional body part without thinking about sex instantaniously... it's a very serious issue.

Damn right. More than likely, this would be a hormonal imbalance of some kind. You apparently know more about this than I.

Just because you don't get excited by the sight of a naked woman doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't and should not, ot that people who do get aroused are going to turn into serial rapists. That's just an asinine conclusion. After all, it is a natural attraction.

Regardless, it is up to the people and their elected officials whether to label toplessness as inappropriate. So let the people decide. My bet is that the proponents will simply find some rogue, unelected judge to create/revise the law.

[typoon]

And people got all offended about a breast shown during the Superbowl. Where is the Offense to this? Where are all the comments about the children and things like that? the comments about it being inappropriate?

[Zimphire]

I would have to buy looser pants.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Damn right. More than likely, this would be a hormonal imbalance of some kind. You apparently know more about this than I.

Just because you don't get excited by the sight of a naked woman doesn't mean that everyone else doesn't and should not, ot that people who do get aroused are going to turn into serial rapists. That's just an asinine conclusion. After all, it is a natural attraction.

Regardless, it is up to the people and their elected officials whether to label toplessness as inappropriate. So let the people decide. My bet is that the proponents will simply find some rogue, unelected judge to create/revise the law.

The breast is no different than a hand, or a mouth.

Is this pornogrpahic:

The body parts revealed and visible in this picture are no more sexual, than what was shown in the superbowl.

It's society alone that randomly decided to make it sexual.

I today declare the thumb to be sexual. I think any thumb on TV should result in serious fines. Anyone willing to hop on board?



It's almost embarassing how some Americans are so afraid of the human body. It's amazing that in the US, it's there are a few human anatomy books sold in 2 editions. One that omits the "naughty parts". That way kids don't know what's between their legs.


Typhoon
I think you might be interested in this:

Opie & Anthony used to have a radio show in NYC, and syndicated nation wide, until about 18 months ago, due to an incident where a couple had sex in St. Pats, causing an FCC blowup.

Anthony himself wrote a 2 part article on this whole superbowl thing. He may have a crude (but funny) sense of humor, but knows the business, and is brutally honest.

Just a small quote:

My favorite part of Ms Wilson�s act was when she said, in an emotional cracking voice, how her son and the other 4th graders knew this was somehow wrong. She looked right at Mel and asked, �If 4th grade children at a public school in Albuquerque New Mexico know right from wrong where did you corporate CEOs lose your way!� Right then and there Mel should have pulled out Bill Paxton�s line from �Aliens�: �So why don�t you put her in charge!�

Listening to this ******** story was making me sick. It�s a story. She made this crap up. I was a 4th grade boy once. I know how 4th grade boys react to these things. They laugh. That�s all. They talk about it with their friends and laugh their asses off. No need to phone the shrink. No need to dump Prozac down his throat. No embarrassing talks needed. You know what the worse thing you can do to a 4th grader in this situation is? Have his mommy go on TV and start crying and yelling at some man about how damaging this is to your family. The 4th grader won�t understand what the big deal is because, remember, it�s funny to him (ha, ha boobies!) and he�ll think something must be wrong because mommy is acting like a lunatic who�s having a nervous breakdown crying on national television.

http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieanth...ne.cfm?id=4500
Part 2:
http://www.foundrymusic.com/opieanth...ne.cfm?id=4584

There's some langauge in there, but quite insightful, and you don't need to know the industry, or anything about the debate to get the articles. He keeps it at a general interst level. As usual, quite insightful.


Now I heard the other day, another radio station caved into requests to ban the 20 year old+ John Lennon Classic "Imagine". Because it's offensive to christians (references to life with heaven, or religion).

When will the stupidity end.

[BRussell]

macvillage - I strongly doubt that society defined the breast to be sexual. More likely, IMO, there's some deep programming going on there.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would have to buy looser pants.

Welcome back

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The breast is no different than a hand, or a mouth.

Except that the skin around the breast is an erogenous zone for many women. That, and the fact that human females are about an exception in that their breasts are swollen constantly. In most mammals, their breasts only enlarge when they're feeding their young. Some go so far as to suggest that a woman's cleavage is meant to be suggestive of her butt crack, because that's near the region where the primary sexual organs reside.

Is this pornogrpahic:

It depends on the viewer. To a sexually starved puritan, that may be highly pornographic, if he finds her attractive. To a tribesman from the Amazon, he might wonder how she can stand the heat with so much on.

The body parts revealed and visible in this picture are no more sexual, than what was shown in the superbowl.

Sounds like you're a little too focused on Janet's breast. Zoom out just a bit. No, not that far. Yeah, see that guy, exposing her? Hear the song being sung? Also, consider that this wasn't just "strip the shirt and walk around" nudity, she was dancing, and specifically trying to titillate her audience. I didn't actually see what happened, but there was plenty going on that was undeniably sexual in nature.

Now, if you want to argue as to weather or not such things should be hidden away, then an interesting conversation might ensue. Being in denial, though, helps nobody.

It's society alone that randomly decided to make it sexual.

I got news for ya, bub. Society didn't tell me to find women attractive. As such, anything that sets women apart from men is fair game in my mind (breasts, hips, butt, etc). It just so happens that many of these things are kept out of sight (admittedly by tradition alone) and thus my sensitivity to the sight of them is increased.

I today declare the thumb to be sexual. I think any thumb on TV should result in serious fines. Anyone willing to hop on board?

I'm sure you can find some thumb fetishists out there. Foot ones, too. Butt and breast fetishes are probably most common, though.

It's almost embarassing how some Americans are so afraid of the human body. It's amazing that in the US, it's there are a few human anatomy books sold in 2 editions. One that omits the "naughty parts". That way kids don't know what's between their legs.

True, I'll agree on that one, but push too hard, and folks are as likely to backslide as make progress.

BlackGriffen

[hyteckit]

Angelina Jolie's lips just turns me on. I want to stick my **beep** into her lips. Now I know why some countries force women to cover their face. You know the mouth is consider a sex organ these days.

[ThinkInsane]

In New York State it is legal for women to go topless in State Parks. Unfortunately, they never seem to take advantage of this. It's a sad, sad, thing....

[DBursey]

Ditto Ontario. Women here won the legal right to go topless in public back in the early 90's. Sightings, however, remain quite rare (except perhaps at Toronto's nude beach!)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Women just offically won through the courts the right to breastfeed outside of designated areas and their own homes.

This reminds me of a wonderful sketch on a British comedy show (I think it was Not The Nine O'Clock News). A woman walks into a room. She has one breast hanging out. The room occupants stare, but say nothing. Realizing that something is amiss she looks down at her breast and exclaims: Oh my God! I left the baby on the bus!!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Women just offically won through the courts the right to breastfeed outside of designated areas and their own homes.

Welcome to the 20th Century, America!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This reminds me of a wonderful sketch on a British comedy show (I think it was Not The Nine O'Clock News). A woman walks into a room. She has one breast hanging out. The room occupants stare, but say nothing. Realizing that something is amiss she looks down at her breast and exclaims: Oh my God! I left the baby on the bus!!

LOL!

[osiris]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Welcome to the 20th Century, America!

Yeah, but about 30 years too late. Aren't there more pressing issues around the States, other than bare teats, gay marriage and 'maybe might have been water on Mars stories?'

Never in my life have I seen so many news stories obfuscating the real issues at one time.

So show your boobs. If you're gay get married. And yes there was/is water on Mars....

Get on with it. Now can we get on with the real issues?? - Like obstructed 911 investigations, Energy commision secrecy, a couple of illegal wars, debt.... Geezus F'in Christ, the president is the best BS artist to ever exist. Sheer genius.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by osiris:
Yeah, but about 30 years too late.

Yes, that was kind of the point.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Women just offically won through the courts the right to breastfeed outside of designated areas and their own homes.

Do you have some sort of link to support that. It may well be a state thing, but it has never been the law of the land, at least not for a long long time. There has been an exception in the NYS Penal code that clearly defines breast feeding woman being exempt from lewdness charges. And as I said above, since 1993, at least in this state, the court ruled that woman can go topless on any public funded land.

245.01, Exposure of a person. A person is guilty of exposure if he appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed. For purposes of this section, the private or intimate parts of a female person (People v. Santorelli limits this to commercial situations) shall include that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola. This section shall not apply to the breastfeeding of infants or to any person entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This reminds me of a wonderful sketch on a British comedy show (I think it was Not The Nine O'Clock News). A woman walks into a room. She has one breast hanging out. The room occupants stare, but say nothing. Realizing that something is amiss she looks down at her breast and exclaims: Oh my God! I left the baby on the bus!!

I think someone posted a link to a video of that on this forum a while back (or somewhere else). Because I remember seeing that.

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
In New York State it is legal for women to go topless in State Parks. Unfortunately, they never seem to take advantage of this. It's a sad, sad, thing....

Except the 500lbs ugly girls with saggy boobs.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Except that the skin around the breast is an erogenous zone for many women. That, and the fact that human females are about an exception in that their breasts are swollen constantly. In most mammals, their breasts only enlarge when they're feeding their young. Some go so far as to suggest that a woman's cleavage is meant to be suggestive of her butt crack, because that's near the region where the primary sexual organs reside.

Your right, we should outlaw the top 10 list:
http://www.askmen.com/love/love_tip/32_love_tip.html


On a sidenote, the male nipple has very similar nerve structure, and can be used to arouse. You don't see men being forced to cover up.

Sounds like you're a little too focused on Janet's breast. Zoom out just a bit. No, not that far. Yeah, see that guy, exposing her? Hear the song being sung? Also, consider that this wasn't just "strip the shirt and walk around" nudity, she was dancing, and specifically trying to titillate her audience. I didn't actually see what happened, but there was plenty going on that was undeniably sexual in nature.

Stop fixating on Janet, and go back to the topic of Women being legally allowed to walk around without a shirt.

Is your mother going to the mall sexual?

I got news for ya, bub. Society didn't tell me to find women attractive. As such, anything that sets women apart from men is fair game in my mind (breasts, hips, butt, etc). It just so happens that many of these things are kept out of sight (admittedly by tradition alone) and thus my sensitivity to the sight of them is increased.

That's in a somewhat abstract sense a conditioned response. Only because you never see it.

American nude beaches need to have high levels of security to prevent cases of rape. In Europe, it's not nearly as much of a problem. Simply because it isn't anything unusual. It's not that Europians don't like women, or Europe doesn't have sexual offenders. It's that Europe didn't condition children from a young age to link the breast to being "forbidden", and "sex". So seeing a woman topless isn't a direct link to sex. It's a link to naked.

I'm sure you can find some thumb fetishists out there. Foot ones, too. Butt and breast fetishes are probably most common, though.

I'm sure.



This isn't to say you can't enjoy looking at breasts. I know I do.

But society has made a giant link from:
breasts --> sex.

Incorrectly.

And then made the even larger mistake, of putting the fault on women.

[hyteckit]

Guess I'm right. Public showing of Lips needs to be outlaw. Public kissing is lewd and is much worst the naked breast.

[Millennium]

Amazing, how many people think that just forcing the issue can desexualize female nudity on a cultural level. Culture isn't something that can be changed forcibly, as these people are trying to do via the courts. It's sad that the people trying to do this don't appear to understand that.

Worse, though, is what will happen if they succeed. They will understand not long after that, and their lesson will be far more brutal than anyone deserves to go through. The saddest thing is, they don't even realize that.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Amazing, how many people think that just forcing the issue can desexualize female nudity on a cultural level. Culture isn't something that can be changed forcibly, as these people are trying to do via the courts. It's sad that the people trying to do this don't appear to understand that.

Worse, though, is what will happen if they succeed. They will understand not long after that, and their lesson will be far more brutal than anyone deserves to go through. The saddest thing is, they don't even realize that.

Americans (meaning that it seems like a really big part of the USAsians that feel there is a DIRECT link between a female breast and SEX!!!!)

Fuxing amazing! IMO (as a saucy European) I find breasts in general much more erotic and sexy IN some sort of clothing, be it a bra, tank top, teeshirt,...

Obviously there aren't many girls posting here either, cuz most'd tell ya that their breast LOOK a LOT better COVERED and SUPPORTED than hanging lose. Exceptions being one out of ten between 16 and 26 with picture perfect boobs. Jeez.

[Developer]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by voodoo:


Americans (meaning that it seems like a really big part of the USAsians that feel there is a DIRECT link between a female breast and SEX!!!!)

Fuxing amazing! IMO (as a saucy European) I find breasts in general much more erotic and sexy IN some sort of clothing, be it a bra, tank top, teeshirt,...

Obviously there aren't many girls posting here either, cuz most'd tell ya that their breast LOOK a LOT better COVERED and SUPPORTED than hanging lose. Exceptions being one out of ten between 16 and 26 with picture perfect boobs. Jeez.

In general, yes.

But it's a fact that American culture seems to automatically sexualize the female breast in any situation. Whether or not this auto-sexualization has any real merit is for another thread; the fact is, it happens. If these women want to go around topless in public without being harrassed, molested, or worse, then cultural change has to come about before legislative change can. Forcing the issue via the courts does no one any good.

[hyteckit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In general, yes.

But it's a fact that American culture seems to automatically sexualize the female breast in any situation. Whether or not this auto-sexualization has any real merit is for another thread; the fact is, it happens. If these women want to go around topless in public without being harrassed, molested, or worse, then cultural change has to come about before legislative change can. Forcing the issue via the courts does no one any good.

Hmm... but didn't the US complain about how some muslim countries force women to cover their faces. See the parallel?

[voodoo]

The way I see it men don't walk around without a shirt or something to cover their torso in general, exeption being very hot places. Why should there be a law that prevents women from cooling more efficiantly than men?!

As for some of the more absurd claims in this thread: Men are not allowed to work in a grocery store topless, in many cases they're not even allowed IN stores topless. See, every private or public establishment can ban topless men from walking around their buildings. And they do. Even if there IS no fetish with male breasts they STILL don't walk around without clothing their upper body. Use your common sense people! Even when women are allowed to walk around with their upper body naked in parks and such public areas LIKE men they rarely do! (unfortuntely I might add)

Allow breasts in public!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by hyteckit:
Hmm... but didn't the US complain about how some muslim countries force women to cover their faces. See the parallel?

Yes, and the consequences will be similar there. The key to cultural change is education, not legislation; legislation only breeds resentment.

But people these days are impatient; they don't want the peaceful solution, because there's a real chance that final resolution won't happen in their own lifetimes. So they go for the quick, supposedly-easy solution -namely, forcing their way through legal channels- only to find that it causes infinitely more suffering and hardship.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Welcome to the 20th Century, America!

Occasionally we even dabble in the 21st century. Not very often, though.