The debate "Women who publicly show nips should be arrested for indecent exposure and given a criminal record" was started by
August 29, 2016, 11:24 am.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 53 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 3 arguments, jack_tim_45 posted 2 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 9 arguments, neveralone posted 7 arguments, Yanksxx21 posted 7 arguments, Blue_ray posted 18 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 38 arguments, jack_tim_45 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
thereal, north, RogueAmerican, NotoriousBishop, blakelovesjesus, Yanksxx21, mooonfox, Apollo, giw2000rgos, LiberalDemocrat, Blue_ray, ZenithOmega, M3phisto, harley_quinn123, Ematio and 28 visitors agree.
jack_tim_45, PsychDave, Nemiroff, historybuff, Bodaciouslady16, Mohit050, neha_22a, devrathore900, CynicKitten, BBQonions, monikofos, unk347, TheExistentialist, tanya, Hillclimber, Neopatriarch, Rajat, Moonlight, beware_of_my_mouth_honey, Unaluhabe and 33 visitors disagree.
on the inequality part
as do I.
Honestly, if the law was "no toplessness" I'm okay with it (no shirt, no shoes, no service). If it was toplessness is acceptable, again I'm fine with it. As soon as something is legal for men and not for women, or vice versa, I have a problem with it.
topless is the next step to naked. though u could still apply topless if u want.
so why do any of us on either side have a say on when it is or not appropriate? thank God there is not any naked guys here. seriously. haha
First, we aren't talking about naked, we are talking about topless.
Second, I would hope that the parents would talk about when it is, and is not, appropriate to be topless. At the beach, OK. Playing in the sprinkler, great. At school, no. This conversation would already be needed since boys go topless at the beach already. Have you seen a nonstop stream of naked boys at school so far? Lol
no on criminal record.
definitely.haha actually only blue ray and rhadi could tell u that for sure. counter argument said gorgeous man walks beside children and see he is naked and decide being naked is okay since he is so start coming to school every day naked. is this okay?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are an attractive man (you may be, I have no way of knowing). As you walk down the beach, you are inspiring lust in every woman and gay man you walk past. Should you be legally required to cover up to prevent this? Should you receive a criminal record for this action?
no it's not personally.
I certainly agree that women objectify men as well. My response was because RogueAmerican seems to think him objectifying women is cause to restrict what rights women receive.
women objectify men. sex doesn't matter in this way. the best way to saying is is probably people objectify others
sexism? how r they bring the symbol of beauty and lust sexist? guys r a symbol of other things.idk there's my class didn't go into detail on guys because everyone is worried about girls in these arguments not guys.
Do you believe women are people, or objects?
Men objectify women. It is natural.
I know you aren't saying it does, but a history of sexism doesn't justify continuing it. The fact that women have been treated as objects throughout history doesn't mean we should continue to treat them as such. They deserve every right, responsibility and freedom than men get.
also women are diff. in two ways. anatomy and historically. anatomy has obvious roots. historically women are almost always the symbol of lust and beauty.
yes.haha no not really. I don't think there's any diff. they do not me.
Why do you feel there is a difference between a topless man and a topless woman? Are you overcome with lust when shirtless men walk by on the beach?
The only difference is cultural. One is sexualized, the other is not.
well when u see naked people of either sex there comes lust. now this may not be here fault but it still happens. women's body in history has always been about beauty and lust. lust is bad is it not? again not her fault but still will always be
Not particularly. Why do you feel that it should be offensive?
what would u say if ur a father and ur child was in the same room as said topless women? do u not see that as bad.
You aren't supporting your arguments. You cite resources that actually run counter to your position. You are still making false claims about where toplessness is illegal. For all these reasons your arguments have been poorly constructed.
what do you mean by poorly conatructed arguments?
Okay you win. :( I have school too. Today was a holiday for me cause i had missed the school bus. Thats why I could debate you. Anyway nice debating with you.
First, it is not illegal in 33 states.
Second, did you actually read that link? It ends with describing the author on a topless beach in Spain and nothing bad happens. It is in FAVOR of permitting women to be topless anywhere it is legal for men to be.
Finally, could you wait longer than 1 minute before patting yourself on the back like a two year old? I didn't flee the debate, I just have a life. Some people are employed. Others have school. I promise you, no matter how many poorly constructed arguments you make, you won't make me flee. Please grow up.
LMAO. psychdave fled the debate arena :D
here's why its illegal in those 33 states
and here are the laws.
and one more thing. Rolex is a financial property not a sexual organ. You have money, you buy it.
have patience. You are going to flee the debate arena once i give those points. just 10 more minutes.
That is not what he is saying. You argument is that women need to be banned from going topless to stop men from raping them. By that logic wearing a Rolex should be illegal to keep people from being mugged. Would you agree with that law?
I'm still waiting for the sensible reasons you were researching.
so you mean women should walk in the times square nude? because according to you thats a woman's choice.
so your argument is that women need to prevented from doing things that are fine for men because men will commit crimes?
it sounds like we as a society need to teach men that this behavior will not be tolerated. they are responsible for their behavior. if they are not capable of that then punish them, severely. don't try to restrict what women can do.
ok i agree. nipples are not genitals. but men have sexualised women through beasts. Men are dangerous. If a woman or a girl roams without a top, she might attract rapists. Thats the reason why its a crime to roam topless . its for public welfare. LMAO you people dont just get it.
and whom are you saying to.
it used to be believed that a woman showing ankle or shoulder was indecent and immoral. at other times it was cleavage, others it was legs.
why do you feel that THIS IS the definitive measure of indecency as opposed to all the others?
Somewhat, yes. Assuming there are sensible reasons without verifying it is rather poor debating.
Your argument is also factually incorrect.
are you mocking me?
Good. Do your research first, then debate.
so those states are made up of foolish people? Wait iam going to google out those reasons.
And those sensible reasons are?
States have laws against eating oranges in the bath. States had laws permitting segregation and denying women the vote. You cannot assume that just because laws exist they are justified.
From your own source.
"A few men who have been studied show the same pattern of nipple stimulation activating genital brain regions, Komisaruk said."
If it is illegal for women, it should be for men. If it is not, it should not be for both.
33 states in the US have laws against females going topless. There must be many sensible resons behind.
dude. female nipples are genitals.
Read the argument again. You missed the point.
men's nipple's arent secondary sexual organs. but that of females are.
So you have copied someone's opinion who agrees with you, how does that mean a sexist law is acceptable? Facial hair is a secondary sexual characteristic in men, should that be illegal to expose as well? It's a good idea to look into the argument before sharing it since in this case they have not thought through the logical consequences of classifying secondary sexual characteristics as genitals.
You have yet to address the fact that, by law, it has to either be illegal for both men and women or neither. If nipples are considered genitals, men being topless should be illegal. If they are not, women going topless should not be illegal. You cannot have it both ways without it being unconstitutional.
ufff. read this one. I took it from Quora.
"They're considered secondary or accessory sex organs. They are not directly related to fertilization, so they're not primary. They are obviously linked to sexual behavior in most cases and important to reproduction as a whole as a source of milk, but not fertilization."
why do you think breasts are genitals? and if female nipples are sex organs then male nipples are sex organs as well and you need to fine men as well.
Do whatever you wanna do in your house. not on the streets.
Women and men cant keep on walking on the main roads expousing their genitals. Because
1) Its fine to enjoy your freedom. But you got to respect other's rights too.
2)It creates a bad image on the society from where he/she belongs to. and the society and their families are blamed.
3) If expoused in front of tourists, Its gonna sink the image of the city or town
4) What are kids gonna learn? Showing genitals is a fashion???
If we're strictly talking about the American justice system, then this is unconstitutional. The 14th amendment has an equal protection clause that went into effect circa 1868(?). So, if you were to make all women who showed nipples criminally liable, then you'd have to make all men liable under that same law.
There is a case in Fort Collins going to federal court under the 14th amendment for just such a law. It is very unlikely that the law will stand given both the 14th amendment and the state's equal protection laws (which are stronger than the federal ones) are in direct conflict with such laws.
These laws are often based on "public nudity" or "pornography" claims, however, since men's chests are not considered genitals and thus do not fall under these umbrella terms, the 14th amendment has to be applied in such a way as to criminalize both men and women or neither.
I wouldn't say legal persecution but a) how does it help there life and b) this is sin in the way of lust. by doing this u will also being exposing kids to porn which last I checked is not good. u might not be doing for that reason but that will be one end result.
But we have to create a legal system to maintain order. I fully agree with that, I just honestly don't see how women going topless damages society, so I don't think it should be illegal. Anywhere it is legal, it has not caused any problems, so why should women face legal persecution for it?
I would say that man really has no say on right or wrong. it's diff. for everyone which is why we use God as our base
it's not that. when I first saw it I thought they were some kind of murder movie people. where God tells me to. idk about the rest of these people
Psych you know what it meant.
So if most of the population was in favor of slavery, it's acceptable? If the majority supported taking the vote away from women, that makes it ok?
Obviously these are more extreme examples, but what you are saying is that if there is popular support for sexism, that makes it acceptable. You need to give some reason for an action that is legal for men to be illegal for women, or accept that your opinion is sexist. If you have another reason, offer it.
Correct the majority of Americans find in inappropriate in public
Because it is very likely that if we talked to every person in the US, they eould be against topless women.
That is not a valid reason when you are advocating sexism. If it is legal for a man to be topless, you need to present a valid reason for why it should be illegal for women. If you cannot do that, the law should be changed.
Its to each and every culture.
Where do you draw the line and why? Depending on culture, indecent could mean showing hair, arms, ankles, face, and in some cultures nudity itself is not indecent. Throughout Europe there are nude beaches. Should they all be considered criminals?
holy crud that's a creepy outfit.(looked it up). no there's just somethings only meant to be seen by ur husband or wife. like ur jelly rolls:-)hahaha.idk if u actually have some if so I apologize.
So people should all wear the bhurka? Lol
not me I agree both need to be covered.haha
You seem to have utterly missed the point. What is "inappropriate" changes with perspective. Ankles used to be considered indecent, so you still haven't given a logical reason why it is ok for men to go topless but not women.
Your mouth has bodily functions, should you be legally required to cover it?
yeah because I don't need to see ur six pack or man boobs
What kind of bodily function
Anything that withholds a bodily function should be hidden
That's what my point is why just girls and that too breasts?? That's really silly
No what makes us civilized is of out use of cloths to cover up any inappropriate body parts, do you expect that it should be legal for a man to run around with his dick out?
Still more, people do get attracted by eyes, lips, face etc... So according to u women should cover their face too??
Ankles used to be considered that way. Do you think women who expose their ankles should be charged?
Anything may appear sexually appealing to a spoilt mind.. We cannot go on imposing restrictions for that..
Nothing really, just how our society functions and what is found sexually appealing, which is inappropriate in public.
Ya what is the difference... Just because men don't have any control on themselves means there is a difference BTW tits and nips.... It is just the same... Men just get too attracted to nips but women do not... And I think if u r preaching of fining women you should preach to control their exuberant emotions..
What is the difference?
It's different in our society sorry, tits are different than nips
Do you think men should be heavily fined if seen topless?
they should probably be heavily fined. also depends on the situation. like if they are around children.
You've just said they shouldn't be arrested, so why not change the law to match rather than just ignoring it?
this one shouldn't.
to show that I don't support people doing it. but thanks for looking. was wondering if it was just me that did look
Laws cam be changed. Drinking used to be illegal. Do you think everyone who has alcohol should be arrested and given a criminal record?
It's still public nudity, and that's like illegal
Then why have you voted that they should be?
I don't think they should be arrested either.
I will agree that I don't particularly want to see everyone walking around shirtless, but that doesn't mean that anyone who does should be arrested.
idk on illegal but definitely shouldn't happen. male or female. because honestly guys I don't need to see ur six pack or ur own set of boobs depending on how much physical stuff u do.:-)
This is a really silly topic.. Whatever one wants to do let them do... If someone feels that she is a whore she is responsible and if no one has any problem then too she is the one responsible.. What is the need of making it illegal
And your judgement that women without a shirt are whores reflects you, not them.
Hey I'm fine with them walking around like whores
How often do you walk down the street shirtless?
Going topless typically isn't socially acceptable for anyone (ie no shirt, no shoes, no service). Beyond that, your inability to control yourself when confronted with a woman is not sufficient grounds to dictate what she can an cannot wear.
they don't want to?
why does no one really go out topless then? besides it being freezing where u r. only reason I can see besides it being looked down on
it's not looked down on as society as a whole. why would society look down on it?
so even though it's legal society as a whole looks down on it.
I've never seen it. it might happen sometimes but it certainly isn't common.
it's legal but it doesn't happen?
being topless in public is legal in Canada. I don't think I've ever seen a woman topless in public. making it illegal is kind of rediculous.
which is why this vine is made and why u don't see it everywhere
If they will have a problem the girl would not be able to move topless..
agree that illegal parts bad disagree that no one has a problem. I bet every family I know would have a problem.
I really do not see why are u all debating on this topic whether boobs sexualise men or not... It really doesn't matter... If a woman is moving topless she must know the consequences of her action... She is doing that maybe because she needs attraction... And if she needs that there is no point of making it illegal as no one is having any problem with her actions...
So your belief is that groups who do not treat breasts as taboo and are therefore do not have a fetish towards them are somehow subhuman and biologically different from the rest of humanity? Otherwise I can't see how you could equate a behavior to biology and think it supports your argument.
Your claims have no evidence, breasts are proven to be biologically arousing to men. You are right, a man who would lose control simply because of seeing boobs has something weird going on, but that's not the point. The point is if it is distracting, which it is... a lot more distracting to men than men's nipples are to women, biological and psychological fact, end of story. No they shouldn't be arrested, a simple fine unless the person continues or something weird happens. The only cultures that has desensitized breasts are African and Oceanic tribes, but they do a bunch of weird shit we can't explain that goes against normal human nature, like eating human brains.
wait so ur saying more exposure. sorry missed this argument.
Many men do receive sexual stimulation from their nipples, so again you are not actually supporting your argument. Why does breastmilk help your position? Do you find feeding children sexually explicit?
I am not expecting anything of you. I am saying that women should not receive criminal records for something that a man would not in the same position. I am arguing that removing the taboo would desexualize breasts, as history has shown it to do to other parts of the anatomy.
Do you have an argument to support your position at this point?
No, women receive sexual stimulation with their breasts, not men. Men dont lactate.
Are you helping men to sexualize women if theyre all walking around topless. It matters here where it doesnt on other cultures. Youre expecting me to change in nature for no reason.
Yes, they are sexualized and you seem to be intent to fight to keep it so.
Women should be able to go topless anywhere it is acceptance for men to go topless. Do you find men being topless too sexually stimulating in general public?
Are women sexualized?
Not beaches; general public
You still don't seem to understand what you are arguing. Not changing with social norms only sexualize women if those new norms don't sexualize women. Are women's ankles scandalous to you? They used to be. Social norms changed and women's ankles are no longer sexualized. That is exactly what I argue would happen to breasts. Once the taboo is lifted, they cease being sexual objects and start just being part of a person. You are the one refusing to change with cultural norms that reduce how much women are sexualized.
To answer your question, I honestly don't see a problem with it. If I ever visit Japan and visit a hot spring, I would not be offended if there were men and women. If I was visiting Europe, I wouldn't be affronted on a nude beach. Nudity is only sexual if you make it so. Obviously where there are health or safety concerns it is different, but why should I care what someone else is or is not wearing?
Im saying by not changing along with social customs, you are further sexualizing women. Culture creates taboo; you're just satisfying sexual urges. They exist as of now.
Im asking you a question, should we be able to wear no clothes if it is in fact only a social custom.
By making them taboo you sexualize them, not vise versa. Throughout history, whatever was taboo was erotic. By removing that taboo, we are reducing the sexualization of women.
Are you saying that, as we are only mammals, there should not be a problem with women going topless? I'm not sure in what way that supports your argument. There are developed societies that do not have the same taboo against nudity. Nude beaches, saunas and shared hotsprings and baths are all examples from around the world where nudity is not sexual, and therefore not a problem. Do you think they are all primitives for not having your prejudices?
First and foremost, we are in the west, not aborigines on an undeveloped island. I dont understand why people have to be in a perpetual state of nihilism. What is wrong with women wearing clothes. This nihilistic narrative of women should do what men do further sexualizes women.
This question leads to a further philospohic debate if you follow it down the rabbit hole: if breasts are taboo and shouldn't be, why are sexual organs. A great warrior poet once said "you and me baby, we aint nothin but mammals"; and that holds some truth in this argument. Why do we care if our sexual organs are exposed? Is it cultural values that prevent it, and if that be the case, then there is no argument against wearing tops. The philosophical underpinnings lead us to one question: are clothes to be practical additions, or mandatory customs.
A candid argument accepts only the extremes or else faces hypocrisy.
Could you please try to debate like a grownup? I know you might not be, but you sound like and insecure 12 year old when you stoop to personal insults.
First, there are examples of homosexuality in nature. Until you have done to research you suggest to others it would be better for you to be silent than expose your ignorance.
While your definition 9f fetish is correct, you don't seem to understand it. If you can't control your reaction to a stimulus, it is a fetish. Whether that is a foot, hair or a breast. If you lose control when you see a topless woman, you have a breast fetish. A normal level of attraction wouldn't rob you of your reason.
Finally, to say that it is acceptable for men to be topless and not women because YOU consider their breasts sexual organs is sexist and, as you seem to enjoy pointing out, stupid. Breasts are not part of sex. Some people are aroused by stimulating them, but so are backs, knees, necks and lips. Breasts are used in feeding children, but so are hands. Breasts are not inherently sexual, society has made them taboo, and so they are perceived to be. Take away the taboo and they are no different than a man's chest.
controlling other people bodies isnt stupid. thats what prevents crime you nonce. are you saying you support pedos then? i hope you dont. youre so stupid its sad.
also the criminal record part is so that women wont be doing it a lot. seeing the way celebrities are dressing, topless women will soon become too normal if the law doesnt do something to stop it.
historybluff, youre retarded. you genuinely are. firstly im not christian and i dont come from a christian culture either. homosexuality isnt natural, its a mental perversion. it is retarded and is intraspecial suicide. if you actually did any scientifoc research instead of bingding off pro lgbt instagram posts, you would know it isnt normal. nature doesnt promote homosexuality in any way, rather it is very harsh against any genes which could sabotage reproducability. the most basic purpose of every species is to continue to live. homosexuality goes against this. its common sense. its in human nature to be homophobic. you, like most sheep, have been brainwashed by the media over the last couple of decades to think it is normal.
secondly, your "arguement" about foot fetishes is stupid. the f***ing definition of fetish is "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc."- the key word here is "abnormal". attraction to breasts etc isnt abnormal. its the general norm and is natural. therefore, the breasts should have to remain covered in a developed, civilised society. if you went to elementary school, you would know that men and women have different anatomies so your arguement that "men can do it so women should be able to" shows the low level state of development your brain is in. Women are not attracted to mens chest in the same way men are attracted to womens. women have less testosterone (therefore lower sex drive) so even if they were to be attracted to mens chests, it wouldnt be a problem. this is why only men should be allowed to make laws on what is considered indecent. women are too naive. and when i say men, i mean men who havent been brainwashed by feminists and dumbasses their entire life. in order for a calm, family friendly environment to be maintained in society women must not be allowed to show such body parts.
no, it is the same. your Christian background, and I mean that in the cultural sense, just tells you it's different. the same way Christianity will tell you homosexuality is unnatural when it is natural by definition.
Christianity has been trying to control people bodies for 2000 years. it has become a part of our culture to control other people's bodies too. that is stupid.
individual places can require a dress code. for example needing a shirt and shoes in a restaurant. or s school requiring someone to be clothed. but restricting what a woman can do when a man can do the exact same thing is just foolish.
Well I think there should be tight restrictions on where it is allowed, and it's stupid to put them in jail but there should be a fine if you do it in the wrong place. Just letting anyone wander around anywhere topless isn't socially and shouldn't legally be acceptable. There is a difference between a guy being without a shirt and a girl being without a shirt and bra, I don't think either should be classified as indecent exposure but it's not the same.
in Canada it is already legal. woman don't tend to walk around topless very much. just because something is legal doesn't mean people are going to do it very often.
giving women a criminal record for doing the exact same thing men can do is incredibly stupid.
While I am not completely against it I am quite skeptical. A guy with a foot fetish isn't gonna get a full out boner and stutter while speaking with a girl in flip-flops, while guys would most likely experience those traits talking to a topless woman in public. It is a scientific fact that guys are much more visually stimulated than girls are, so naked boobs everywhere would be very distracting and cause for disruption in serious places. I don't think guys should go shirtless in those places either but it would be quite more of a distraction if girls were to do it.
people can be sexually attracted to pretty much anything. lots of people are attracted to men's chest. if your whole argument is that people are attracted to women's chests then men can't walk around without a shirt, without shoes (foot fetish), without full pants (attraction to legs), without sleeves (attraction to muscles). I can keep going here.
you want to control people based on your opinion of what is sexual. that is incredibly stupid.
historybluff, so? thats the point of a debate. womens chests are indecent because they are sexual organs. men are attracted to them. women are not attracted to mens chest in the same way. women going around like that is extremely indecent and is not a healthy social atmosphere. the only people who would honestly advocate for such a thing are slaggy celebs and people who idolise them. each year slags wear less and less clothe and nobody days anything. women wear swimming clothe which is very close to the pussy lips, you never see men walking around with swim suits that show their genitalia. a line has to be drawn. the fact is men and women have different anatomies so the "well men can do it" arguement is extremely ******y. The minimum public requirement of clothe for women should be that their upper body is to be covered and atleast navel to knees has to be covered because thighs, hips, genitalia and breasts are the most sexual parts of their body.
Why are women's chests indecent but men's are not?
what a rediculous idea. in Canada a woman can walk around topless in public. it is perfectly legal.