There's several areas where walking around topless is legal. You don't see very many women doing it, simply because they don't want to.
These same type of women that want to walk around topless or the same ones that's going to turn around and whine about being objectified and stared at.
hey dr. smoke a little more and calm down , they are only breast
shareIf women wanted to be objectified for being topless, they'd work at strip clubs, with the bonus of getting paid to be objectified. The point of the topless movement is to remove the objectification from being topless, to be free to do so in public same as men. Why do women not have the same right to be topless as men?
A lot of those areas where walking around topless is legal are remote locations, with a few skeezy guys who make it an uncomfortable experience. If you had to travel a hundred miles to a remote lake just to be topless, how often would you be doing it? You can go outside topless anytime you want, of course you take that freedom for granted.
So according to you, the intent is to put your sexual organs on display, and then be angry at those who notice.
That's called attention whoring. I stand by the OP.
Further, if men did the same with their sexual organs, it would be termed sexual harassment. In fact, men have been registered as 'sex offenders' for urinating on a wall.
I would like to see these feminists arrested, and registered as sex offenders. Because.. I believe in equality. Even though they quite obviously never have.
No one is intending to put their sexual organs on display, breasts are not organs nor are the primarily sexual. Their sexual function is secondary. This is the point they are trying to make.
50 years simply wearing a bikini was "whoring", 100 years ago you'd be giving them flack for exposing ankles. In islamic countries they still do whereas in various European & indigenous cultures breasts are simply not an issue.
The fact you think it's equal to arrest women for exposing the same body part men have been able to expose for decades shows you don't really know what equality means.
I find it extremely irritating when people classify sexual purpose as separate from reproductive. Since sexual is just a subset of reproductive. Obviously. I guess the feminist handbook doesn't teach you common sense.
But ok, we'll use your red herring taxonomy.
Reproductive and sexual. Those are the two purposes of the human breast. Much like the penis. Or the vagina. In fact, the other two have a third purpose which the breast lacks. And yet they are kept hidden.
The male nipple has no purpose at all. Neither sexual, nor reproductive. So there is no comparison at all to the sexual organs. Saying you want to display what men are allowed to display is disingenuous, as a female breast is not even remotely like a male nipple.
Personally I don't care what people display. But the only double standard here is that the women are not registered as sex offenders, which is exactly what would happen if men had a 'free the penis' rally. And you know it.
Whether or not your sense is "common" it doesn't stop pretty much all of it from being wrong.
1: sexuality is completely separate from reproduction as many people have sex, including elderly and same sex couples, not to reproduce. In todays world you can also reproduce without having sex. During sex breasts purpose is secondary, like lips, and many other body parts that can be pleasurable to the touch. That is why women who have had mastectomies can still have sex and even reproduce, try doing both naturally without a penis or vagina.
2. There is nothing reproductive about the human breast other than the nourishing of the infant that results in said reproduction. Lactation can be induced with or without child birth and many women decide not to or physically incapable of breastfeeding. Men can also lactate under the right hormonal conditions: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-males-can-lactate/
3. The male nipple is an erogenous zone, just like a women's. Same amount of nerve endings, many men can receive sexual pleasure through their stimulation while many women cannot. It's not as black and white as you seem to think.
4. So with all that said it makes your sex offenders claim that much more stupid, until you can say your penis can feed a child you may want to stop comparing them to breasts....
That's like saying once it's okay for guys to flaunt their wealth in public, de-value any attraction to wealth, it'll eradicate the culture of gold diggers and eliminate property crimes.
Guys will just end up judging who has prettier and hotter boobs just like they will be attracted to pretty faces.
what are you talking about, guys flaunt their wealth in public all the time, no one goes "OMG a guy with money! Censor him and hide the children!"
Its about normalizing breasts so their not just valued as sex objects but parts of a women's body that are primarily used to feed babies. Their sexual function is secondary, like lips.
Yeah, but does guys flaunting their wealth make all women see them as who-they-really-are-without-their-wealth and eradicate gold diggers? Nope. It simply paints a target on them.
Some regions require women to wear veils. So, to them, not having to wear veils would mean they could be free to be seen as who they really are. But is that the case? Yes, we are not banned from showing our faces, and it's great, but we'll still be judged based on appearance. We're living it. Women aren't free from needing to cover up their faces. Women ended up putting on makeups to hide flaws. And those who just can't pretty themselves up end up being self conscience of the superficial. And it'll just be the same for bodies.
And don't blame this on men. Men know nothing about makeup, which means we don't give a shiet about women's makeup.
When women have the freedom to bare their breasts if they want to ( and that's great ), I bet you those with pretty beasts will do so, making other women more self aware of their bodies. It'll just create a new consumer market for breast creams and nipple colorings and shelf-bras to perk them up. And guys won't have to second guess if the women they like has nice boobs or not. Just as, without veils, guys start picking ones with pretty faces. Yes, women would get to do whatever they want. But that does not mean beats would be normalized or desexualized. We see boobs all the time already, we have the internet. It's just one more feature to add to men saying, "I prefer women with blah blah blah"
Also, even in the highly unlikely event that boobs do get normalized and desexualized, is it okay then, for men to say, "You have nice big boobs.", just like when men say, "You have nice big eyes."? That's no longer a harassment is it? Because that context is no longer sexualized.
By the way, in most public places, and places of private businesses, men aren't allowed to bare their boobs. Yes, we won't be arrested, but we would be asked to leave or put some shirt on.
I like your reasoning.
Baring breasts will in fact make women even more objectified, what an irony...
Guys flaunt the "trappings" of their wealth, ie material possessions in the form of cars, boats, expensive suits etc (all of which could also be leased, borrowed or stolen), and not their actual wealth. If they did that, they would be walking down the street with stacks of 1000 dollar bills stuck all over their bodies, or be wearing T-Shirts announcing their net worth. Besides a woman does not need to go completely topless to flaunt her breasts.
shareThe point of the topless movement is to remove the objectification from being toplessI literally can't comprehend the whole "objectification" arguments people have. Like it's literally so stupid to the point my brain turns to mush trying to think about it. We're visual creatures for starters. Secondly we're biologically hardwired to find the opposite sex attractive. The second we see someone we don't know and find them attractive we are instantly objectifying them. It's as simple as that. Basically the people whining about that type of stuff has no idea how biology or psychology works.
to be free to do so in public same as men. Why do women not have the same right to be topless as men?
a few skeezy guys who make it an uncomfortable experience.
" Breasts have been sexualized in a most countries for hundreds of years. Walking around topless isn't going to unsexualize breasts. "
dude if theyt frighten you look the other way , people use to complain about black and white couple , then gay couples , then women showing their legas , now its women showing their breast , they are only boobs , your obsession w cloaking women smacks of a sheria law , women should be in berka so men will not stare at them , get over it , or move to the middle east ,
You seem to be pulling a red herring, sticking words in my mouth that I never said or even hinted at and then arguing it.
I, like most men don't care if women walk around topless. I'm all for it. However, don't complain when men stare at their tits and make crude sexual comments. That is the argument most rational people are trying to make. Women these days are extremely entitled. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too. Women want to walk around topless? Fine by me. But don't call people creeps, pervs,etc for looking at her tits.
It's the same beyond idiotic logic women have when they wear tanktops with their tits hanging out and then turning around and getting mad when guys stare or make comments. Can't have it both ways.
I'm a woman and I totally agree. My brain hurts with the basic stupidity and lack of common sense. Just because you, as a woman, want to run around with your breasts bared for the world to see, doesn't make it normal. Heterosexual men, and lesbian woman are wired to see them as sexual playthings.
Thousands of years of men worshipping bare breasts and you just want it to go away, overnight, just because you say so. Get a brain. Oh, and I suppose that when you go home at night and take off your clothes for your lover it's okay for them to be sexual entities again, just because you give permission.
Sad.
[deleted]
I don't agree with all this feminists crap. I literally rolled my eyes when I saw this on here. And before anyone accuses me of being homophobic, hah, I don't believe in that either. I feel the faminazi man hating gay agenda is a form of de-evolution with lots of mental and psychological stuff going on that makes them not normal. It's like they are a defective part of the human race....I think a yahoo article claimed that the gay gene or whatever was a form of evolution for our species...hah, for what purpose!? Evolution is what happens to help species survive and to continue on, and since gay people, especially faminazi lezbians, do not wish to do their jobs and take part in procreation for our species, then they sure as hell aren't evolved and shouldn't be allowed to continue on with the rest of us! Population control achieved.
In today's world a natural blonde is as rare as a redhead.
It is cultural marxism which feminism is a part of. They want to destroy the normal natural gender roles of a heterosexual man and a women and replace them with a distorted set of gender roles that do no conform to this natural set of gender roles. This is because cultural marxists believe that the natural gender roles are a cultural phenomenon imposed by patriarchy. They want to deny the natural sexual desires of men and women and turn the sexes against each other.
shareits stupid because men don't have tits only women do what is the point of walking around topless ? What point are you making to men ? a women has tits they stick out she takes off her top and lets them hang its going to draw attention you dont want to wear a bra fine then dont no one is making you do it .These libtards are all the same self loathing useful idiots
I love having some mystery to the character without having to question who he is "