Why the "Free the Nipple" movement is just another example of extremist stupidity

[Skadouchebag]

1) Having women cover their breasts is not a double standard, its simply acknowledging the fact that men and women have different anatomy. Equal is not the same as identical. 3+3=6. 2+4=6.

2) Since men's pecs are just as arousing to women as women's breasts are to men, I think we should actually go back to making both sexes cover their chests. If you look at the really old men's swimsuits, they look a lot like modern women's one-pieces; the only reason things changed was basically because a bunch of meat-heads started protesting that they couldn't show off their full beauty.

3) I fail to see how making women cover their chests could possibly cause them any actual detriment whatsoever. Protesting this with the same energy and determination as the protests for voting rights or equal job opportunities is just stupid. "Well bras start to hurt after a while/ It's hard to find the right bra size/something about bras being inconveni-" Shaddup. Men's underwear is inconvenient, too. It easily and often bunches up on one side of our junk, and there's simply no subtle way of readjusting. And what kinds of underwear don't do that are so loose that they tend to fall down inside our pants.

And before anyone starts questioning why we should wear any clothes, I reccomend watching this video:

Also, clothes keep bugs out of our moist, sweaty folds, and it also keeps dirt and sand out of there when we sit down.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you. Everyone of each gender should be kept clothed in public, unless you're in a beach.

I do not understand why feminists want to walk around topless or nude out on the streets and making themselves look like trashy whores. To me it looks tasteless and unclassy.

Their only main argument for this issue is that men can go out topless but how many guys do you see going shirtless in public everyday? Pretty rare, actually.

And I have also noticed that a lot of men support this movement because they just want to see bare boobs, which I find quite creepy and perverted...

[Skadouchebag]

I Know, right?

[jacquesvol]

Explain them wearing a burqa is more respectful.

;-)

[Skadouchebag]

Actually, burqas were originally meant to simply keep the pervs off them, and this intent is retained in modern non-fundamentalist Islam. In fundamentalist Islam, they suppress the women by making them cover up what little skin is left exposed, by covering their faces with a cloth woven thin enough to see out of.

[Opinion Owner]

@Jacquesvol Not Burqas. Clothes...

You obviously just want to see women's bare breasts everywhere you go, disgusting.

[Red7336]

ACTUALLY burqas were to protect certain women a loooooooong time ago (long time ago very long story) they are not an obligation for nowadays women, but if a woman wants to wear it she is free to do so, it is not a must though (you are actually not supposed to pray with your face covered up whether male or female)
im muslim and i dont wear it (sure will one day) i know muslims who wear it or wear burqas or who dont wear it at all (i Live in a muslim country btw) and its all just fine (yes its not the case in all countries but that doesn't mean anyone who wears it is oh so oppressed) we are not oppressed stop telling yourselves that
you are obviously not muslim and not a woman so please dont speak on behalf of us, we have our own voices thank you
www.pak101.com/.../...in%20Islam%20for%20women.jpg
www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/.../download.jpg
and hijab wearing women of France have been fighting for it

[Red7336]

when it comes to the opposite sex (appart from protection from pervs and creeps) here is the point i3.cpcache.com/.../why_hijab_throw_pillow.jpg
basically you either like me for me or not at all

it also teaches girls and women to look good so THEY can be happy with what they see and have confidence, not to look good so they are eye candy for random people on the street or attract that type of attention
and it teaches both sexes to focus on character and looks can come later, as you can see a lot of girls these days do their absolute best to look flawless (which is impossible, and depressing), when that is all covered up and others won't get to see it you learn to build character instead

[Red7336]

@ArabianPwincess197

[Opinion Owner]

@Red7336
If you are talking to me, I never said women with burqas are oppressed.

[ArabianPwincess197]

@Red7336 he never said women in Islam are oppressed. He meant burqas protect women through protecting their chastity from pervert men. And I think they are compulsory to wear because hijab doesn't just mean covering your hair but your body too. However people are more liberal in todays world hence we have the choice to wear it or not

[Red7336]

no i meant take owner not opinion owner lol

[Red7336]

i actually agree 100% with opinion owner

[Opinion Owner]

@Red7336
Okay, apologies for mistaking.

[Monsters]

But why not keep ot special for that specisl person?

[RJGraveyTrain]

I'm not all into the whole "free the nipple" movement necessarily, but I should make a point to say you're not entirely correct. You said men and women have different anatomy, I assume you mean in regards to the nipples. This isn't actually true: infants form nipples because all children start out female before forming a penis, so our nipples are essentially the same. The only real difference between the male and female mammary glands is the size and function. Believe it or not, some men ARE in fact capable of lactating.

[RJGraveyTrain]

Honestly though I do see the movement as entirely pointless, there are much more pressing issues to consider in regards to both genders than whether or not we can walk around with are tits out.

[Skadouchebag]

They start out the same, but they end up completely different. They are shaped differently, which qualifies as differing anatomy.

[RJGraveyTrain]

The breast, yes, but not the nipple, which was my point. Either way, they are more similar than different, and to me it isn't a good argument. If you wanted to make an argument about being anti-nipple movement I would personally rely on something a little more concrete. It isn't mandatory, it's just a suggestion, just trying to offer constructive criticism.

[Skadouchebag]

breasts and the nipples evolved to function as display organs. in 99% of mammals, the female is the only one who ever has nipples (human males have nipples merely because women developed them, and there weren't any evolutionary pressures to keep them from spreading to men), and even then only while actually nursing. and even *then*, the nipple is little more than a raised duct that looks identical to the surrounding skin. can *you* give a better explanation for why we might've evolved to be different?

[xCutesyLolitax]

I would personally consider anyone, man or woman, who went around shirtless in public to be distasteful and inelegant (The beach is an exception, however). These women protesting to "free the nipple" should really take into consideration that most heterosexual men, if not all, will not be able to control their urges and that some will undoubtedly stare. Similarly to another GAGer, the thought of boners springing up from indecent men is a rather unpleasant thought, one that I will not be fond of reflecting upon while attempting to have a decent day out in public. While I am able to comprehend that others should have the right to treat their own bodies as they please, others should also take into consideration that their actions may have consequences on other people as well. Now, what those people decide to do behind closed doors should be no one's business except for theirs and shall be treated as such.
Furthermore, there also seems to be another issue at play here. Biologically, men and women will never be equal, due to our species' sexual dimorphism, etc. Despite men's nipples possibly being as equally arousing as women's breasts, due to the differences in the brain chemistry of both sexes, most women carry the civility of ignoring a situation where a man is topless, whereas the same cannot be stated of the majority of men if it were a woman topless instead.

[Skadouchebag]

As I said in the take, while we will never be the same, that doesn't mean we won't be equal. equal is not the same as identical. black people are equal to white people, but that doesn't mean black people are quite the same as white people.

[xCutesyLolitax]

There are many different types of equalities within society, including but not limited to civIl equality, political equality, social equality, natural equality, and economic equality, and these are just examples of the ones found in different political systems. Point being, when you claim that men and women are, indeed, equal, you must take into consideration all of the different types of equalities in existence, because there is not just one type of equality at hand. For instance, this "biological equality" I was making a reference to before fails to be synonymous with "social equality." Not even identical twins's DNA is 100% identical. There is not such thing as 100% biological equality between one human being and another, due to these genetic variations. However, that has nothing to do with social equality, which in practice has never existed although an ideal.

For example, because genetic mutations are still occurring, and because evolution is environmentally dependent and we're

[xCutesyLolitax]

(the best traits in Nigeria are not the same as the best traits in Iceland for survival and procreation) this means that even if all human beings were made genetically identical right now, inequalities would quickly begin to form. It's simple the truth that we are not all equal. The human race of the future will not contain descendants of all people alive to day. Many people's children will be out competed by other people's children. This is the reality of things, what the consequences of that reality are, is a topic worth exploring, but we can not do so effectively until society (and especially the scientific community) openly accepts the truth of our inequality.

Women's emancipation is one of the glories of Western civilization and one of the great chapters in the history of freedom. Women have finally achieved equality under the law. However, achieving biological equality is impossible. For instance, the fact that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman is an undeniably accurate statement.

[TheLittleBuggy]

I read the title and knew I would agree with you, I can't give a percentage, because percentages do not go that high.

Anyway, I read over what you said anyway, even though I already knew I agreed with you, in fact I myself have openly said before that I think this entire thing is idiotic, multiple times really.

But yes, you really did hit the nail on the head with this really.

And as that guy said below, most guys don't go around shirtless unless you are at a beach. But even then, women's swimsuits generally show off enough leg to make up for the lack of chest anyway.

And yes, Men's chest can be a bit arousing, but you didn't even press on the fact that while a woman might look over at a mans chest, men and women's minds our different. They just are, you can't force them to be the same. Women tend to have the decency not to say anything, or try not to stare, however if women walked around topless all the time, could you even imagine how many boners might spring up from indecent men?

It's disgusting really, and I really have no idea why they would WANT to walk around topless anyway. I mean, I panic when I even have to show like a doctor or something my STOMACH, but to completely go bare chested...*shudders* No. No. A thousand times no. If they wanna show off their breasts they can join a nudist community.

[Skadouchebag]

Actually, most men try not to stare, too.

[TheLittleBuggy]

that's why I made a point to call the ones who DO stare indecent :3

[Spiorad_Aisce]

In Ireland it never gets that warm and rains all the time so that puts paid to any public nudity campaign. Seriously Free the nipple, I honestly don't care as some have said the sexualisation of the breast gives it an unjust exoticness but in reality it is just part of the body, Seriously go to any topless beach in Europe first few minutes wow, wow, wow after ten minutes there goes a pair of boobs and another , another.
To get back to the take issue I think fascination with this extreme notions take away from the real issues. I will give you an example I was reading about the Taliban way back before the conflicts and afghani women were being interviewed saying that western feminists were going crazy about the burkas and the afghani women were going WTF, a lot of us don't mind the burka, what is far more important is that we are denied education and professions. Doctors and teachers etc all had to be men but the western feminists stayed obsessed with the burka.

[Skadouchebag]

if breasts aren't an erotic body part, then explain why it feels so good to them when we fondle them in the bedroom?

[BaileyisDarcy]

Guys aren't the only ones who suffer when it comes to undies. We get wedgies too, and trust me when I say that a 'front' wedgie is probably as bad as needing to adjust your junk and a little harder to remove.

The only reason men equate boobs to sexaul anything, is because society has sexualised them. I saw a documentary a few days ago on tribes out somewhere, and the documentor asked the tribeswomen why they didn't cover up their chests and they responded with something along the lines of 'why should I?'

They found it funny that men acted like babies wanting milk when it came to breasts.

I don't get why people are so opposed to women letting their tits breathe.

[Skadouchebag]

Even *those* cultures have their erotic parts. Which parts of either sex must be covered in public varies from culture to culture, but they're always there. At one point in my conversation below with heavensgift2girls, I explained which parts of both sexes I think should be covered, based on which ones are actually pertinent to sex.

[KAZ-2Y5]

As a feminist I can't believe some people will call themselves feminists and advocate for the right to walk around topless and yet do nothing for the girls around the world being forced into marriage from a young age when they should be going to school. We have bigger issues people.

[Skadouchebag]

*applause* Now THAT'S an issue I can protest,

[GirlsLie]

That's exactly how I feel, it's such a stupid fight to be fighting, especially compared to other things in the world.

[AdenKayStark]

I agree but changing things around the world is nearly impossible its like changing there bbeliefs and culture which is difficult to do.

[heavensgift2girls]

I completely disagree with you. The only reason women's breasts are so much more sexualized than a man's chest is because they are covered up all the time. In the cultures where women can walk around naked the female body isn't a big deal and the women aren't seen as sex objects. In the cultures where women are told to cover up, people are being taught that they need to be covered because their bodies are in fact sexual objects. That leads to a whole other set of issues. Instead of freeing women from those issues you want to cause men to suffer the same issues.

Right now if women could go topless, and men were covered from head to toe where you could barely see the guys eyes, women would be acting like perverts anytime they even got a glimpse of a man's ankle. The moment you are told to cover up, you are being told you are a sex object, and other gender learns that lesson about you as well.

[Skadouchebag]

Please read the other comments here.

Also, this has nothing to do with whether or not women are sex objects. Even the African cultures that let women hang their breasts in plain require women to cover the entire length of their legs the same way we require women to cover their breasts. Even in cultures like the vikings, where women and men were seen as equal (and even in ones where women were seen as superior), there were body parts on both sexes that had to be covered up in public.

[heavensgift2girls]

I did read the other comments. What about them? Just because they don't agree with me doesn't mean I am wrong. The majority isn't always right. I don't know what point you are trying to make about men and women having different parts they cover in different cultures, as that destroys your own argument that men should have to cover our chests like women do.

The fact is we live in a sexually repressed country. We are constantly judging other people and trying to control their sexuality including how they are allowed to dress. It is a direct assault on our freedoms, and is demeaning to our value as human's.

[Skadouchebag]

Well if you want to talk about sexual freedom, read this: sin-and-love.deviantart.com/.../Mere-Christianity-bk-3-ch-5-553691823

[heavensgift2girls]

Guys get turned on by legs and breasts. Whichever one is hidden away from view becomes the on that culture sexualizes the most. It really just helps prove my point. Because you come from a culture that doesn't shame legs as much, and shames breasts a lot, you see breasts as sexual objects more so than legs.

[heavensgift2girls]

That was utter nonsense. From start to finish that person was an asshole trying to control others through shame. People are allowed to like what they like. It doesn't matter if they are a starving man or a glutton. They have a right to their personal freedom. In fact we all know that the word glutton is only used by people that wish to shame personal freedom that they don't like. If you don't want to fantasize about food, then don't. There is no reason to shame other people for living their own lives. Much like how people accuse men that support women going topless of being perverts to win arguments, instead of accepting that men might actually be able to respect a woman's right to do something that she wants to do.

[heavensgift2girls]

Most men don't choose to go topless, and far fewer women will choose to go topless. In fact in many places it already is legal for women to go topless, and so few women do it that almost no one realizes that it is legal in those areas. So my support isn't about trying to get women to go topless. It is about freedom and respect for the human body.

[Skadouchebag]

True. Which is why I sometimes consider that maybe we should have men and women cover both their thighs and chests. I think that we should determine which parts to cover based on which parts are actually pertinent to sex. Breasts, what with all the groping and erotic nerve receptors there, stay in. Thighs, being so close to the genitals, and with the fact that they so frequently serve as "handles" during sex, go in. The ass, having been closely linked to sex literally since we were monkey-like creatures in trees, says in.

[heavensgift2girls]

So what if we determine the face is sexual, and that needs to be covered? After all we kiss it and use our face in sexual acts all the time. What about our hands that we use to sexually touch our partners? What would happen is that basically women would have to dress like they do in the middle east, which most find to be a violation of their human rights, and that men should have to do the same. So instead of freeing one gender, you want to restrict the rights of the other gender. That is the complete opposite direction we should be headed.

[Skadouchebag]

Kissing isn't necessarily sexual. Besides, we evolved to communicate with each other using our faces (facial expressions and such.) Covering the fact would defeat the purpose.

We use our hands in sex simply because they are our manipulative organs, and manipulation of certain body parts is a core part of sex. If we had other manipulative organs, we'd use those too.

Read the dicussion on burqas I had in the comments of my mytake here (the conversation is on the opinion of the male anon who starts out with "I agree with you. Everyone of each gender should keep clothed in public): www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a21643-why-the-free-the-nipple-movement-is-just-another-example-of

Also, I really don't see how you could take "determine which parts to cover based on which are pertinent to sex" and jump to being covered from head to toe. What the heck do parts like the shins or the forearms or the bellybutton have to do with sex?

[heavensgift2girls]

In some Muslim cultures they already have determined that every part of the female body is sexual, so we have a real world example of that leap already having been made. That is the point I am making. What is and is not sexual is simply a part of our culture and not a something that can be intellectually decided upon.

[Skadouchebag]

Those Muslim cultures are all fundamentalist, aren't they? When was the last time a fundamentalist made a rational decision?

[heavensgift2girls]

What is and is not sexual is a feeling, and therefore can not be rational. The fact you don't agree where they draw the line doesn't make them less rational. They came to their own determination as to what was and wasn't sexual. You just happen to not agree with them on where to draw that line.

[Skadouchebag]

Isn't it probable that their decisions were influenced by the fact that they were already heavily bigoted towards women? like how American black men had to pass a literacy test back in the 60s, a test that was so advanced and difficult that you could probably give it as a class assignment to university students.

[Skadouchebag]

... even though a white man was considered literate if he could write his name.

[heavensgift2girls]

I assume you mean how they were sexist toward women. In fact one could argue that they were just as, if not more sexist towards the men, because it was assumed men couldn't control themselves and therefore the women needed to cover up to make up for the man's lack of control. That attitude is unfair to both genders, but in different ways. It promoted the idea of slut shaming women, and pervert shaming men. The United States was founded by fundamentalists, and that is why we are still so sexual oppressed today, and actually think there is something wrong with showing the nipple. It is just a nipple and we shouldn't make a bigger deal out of it than it is.

[Skadouchebag]

"It's just a nipple." Could not the same be said for the genitals? And before you go ahead and agree with that, rewatch the video above.

[heavensgift2girls]

I have seen that video before. I don't think you understand the point the video is making, and it makes some points I don't agree with. Do you really think that if men went around with our privates showing that we would be having sex all the time? I am pretty sure women have the self control not to have sex with every dick they see. Besides that video is only about why people might choose to be modest, or like modest people. It does not say it is right to publicly shame or ban people that aren't modest.

Just because society might like you better if you are different, doesn't mean that you should be forbidden to do something by our society. Anyone that breaks away from societal standards will have the problem of not being liked. Just look at how much trouble and hatred gays have received from not fitting in with society. Or how much hate some women might get for wearing a bikini in a more conservative area. That doesn't mean we should ban them form wearing it or shame them.

[heavensgift2girls]

The intolerance of other people is not a good excuse to deny us our freedoms. As long as people are wearing something over their butts so they aren't leaving shit stains everywhere causing a hygiene issue, then people need to lay off of them. Seeing the naked body isn't going to hurt anyone.

[Skadouchebag]

When I was a child, my dad was subscribed to this magazine that he kept on the back of his toilet. I can't remember what it was about (I couldn't read yet), but I do know that it wasn't pornographic. However, there were still scantily clad women in the ads. No more scantily clad than what's to be expected of ads. Long story short, My dad had to add a security system to our internet browser, and continue to tighten it a lot sooner than he should've. I had to learn to deal with buildup of sexual frustration before I even hit middle school. It wasn't easy at all.

[heavensgift2girls]

So in other words you were taught to be ashamed of your normal sexuality, and to this day you think there is something wrong with the feelings you had back then. Sadly that doesn't surprise me. A lot of people are taught there is something wrong with their sexuality.

Your liking to look at girls back then was based on you hitting puberty younger than expected, and your body being flooded with hormones. If the hormones weren't there then you wouldn't have been excited by that type of thing. It has nothing to do with finding some magazine when you were little.

Can you imagine a people being born naked, and require to be feed from breasts as an infant, but that can be forever damaged if they accidentally come across a naked or scantily clad person? There is no way that humanity is that easily damaged by nudity.

[Skadouchebag]

Of course there was something wrong with the feelings I was having! I WAS A FRIKING KID! I shouldn't have had to deal with them for another decade! I shouldn't have even been *able* to feel them that early!

And I know for a fact that I didn't hit puberty yet, since my genitals started acting a lot differently around the age a boy normally hits puberty. For one, up until then my dick would straighten and get stiff whenever I would look at such pictures, but it wouldn't do anything else. It didn't grow at all, and those boners didn't even feel like they do now. It felt a bit like a balloon with a bit too much water being pumped into it. I remember coming across this one video on youtube with some girls in a bubble bath (no nipples), and it got so swollen tht it hurt real bad. As another sign I didn't hit puberty until the normal period, that's when my voice started cracking, when I started growing body hair, and all the other developments that are a part of male puberty.

[Skadouchebag]

It wasn't the fact I was feeling lust in and of itself that my dad didn't like, it was that I was so young. Now that I'm 19 he's given me my own laptop with no security system at all. I'm using it right now.

[heavensgift2girls]

There is literally no way that one stupid magazine did that to you. I know you have lived a sheltered life, but even you must realize how dumb that sounds. It was your biology, not a piece of paper that made you act that way. If you had more or less of a certain hormone than other kids your age, that could explain it. Besides you can't tell when a boy starts puberty. You could have started puberty young, but then developed slow. That would explain your erections to women, but not having others signs of puberty yet. Your issue was clearly biological.

[heavensgift2girls]

Anyway just because you can't control yourself, doesn't give you are right to tell other people how to live. That is the same excuse that those fundamentalist use and you don't seem to respect them. If it is wrong for them to use that excuse it is wrong for you to use that excuse.

[heavensgift2girls]

So how old were you then?

[heavensgift2girls]

You say you were a kid, but you I don't know what you consider a kid. I really suspect you were more on schedule than you realize.

[Skadouchebag]

It wasn't just one magazine, it was being exposed to each issue as it turned up on his toilet.

And If *I* could hardly control myself, how do I know other kids can? Well obviously some kids will, but how many?

And as for how old I was, I couldn't even read yet, and I was still in Elementary school. I seriously doubt a guy can start puberty *that* early.

[heavensgift2girls]

Did it ever occur to you that if you had grown up where the human body wasn't hidden away then you wouldn't have seen the magazine as a big deal. It is a lot easier to get aroused by a woman, when you never get to see one, which is the point I was making earlier. Keeping the human body hidden turns it into a sexual object. If you grew up never seeing a woman because they were completely covered you would have been doing the same thing to their shins or whatever. Whatever part is hidden becomes sexualized. What we need to to is to normalize the human body.

Just because you personally had an issue with looking at women, doesn't entitle you to be able to control how they dress or act. That is your problem not theirs. It isn't their responsibility to make sure you act appropriately. You are making the exact argument that fundamentalist religious extremists use to control others. You are saying "I can't control myself, so women need to surrender their freedoms".

[Skadouchebag]

It's a lot easier to get aroused when their bodies are covered up. Sure, but wouldn't that mean that, when the time to actually have sex came, it would be just as hard to get aroused in a society where the bodies aren't covered up?

And stop saying that requiring people to be modest would be surrendering their freedoms. Unless we went so far as to cover them from head to toe in black under the desert sun, I --again-- fail to see how it would actually cause them any actual detriment.

[heavensgift2girls]

The detriment is this "It's a lot easier to get aroused when their bodies are covered up". Even you realize that covering the body ends up sexualizing it. You are literally trying to control how other people view sex and the human body. That is a huge detriment to people that don't want to be shamed, or reduced to sex objects.

[heavensgift2girls]

"it would be just as hard to get aroused in a society where the bodies aren't covered up?" Again that isn't a woman's problem. In fact that would be fixing the problem you seem to have with the female body right now.

[Skadouchebag]

"because they don't want to be shamed" is not a good argument for removing a rule. If someone violates a very important rule that is rightly in place, then shaming them would be quite just. Whether or not the rule is a good one to have must be determined on other grounds. Children are shamed for drawing on the walls, but the fact that they do not want to be shamed is not a good reason to let them do as they wish.

Isn't it just as true that *you* are trying to control how people view sex and the human body? how is my attempt to keep tighten standards any different from your attempt to loosen them?

Just because I think people should cover up certain body parts does not mean that I think there is anything inherently wrong with those body parts, nor even anything wrong with the sex of the person they belong to.
"If I object to a boy who steals my nectarines, must I be supposed to disapprove of nectarines in general? Or even of boys in general?

[Skadouchebag]

Or even of boys in general? It might, you know, be *stealing* that I disapprove of." -- C. S. Lewis.

[heavensgift2girls]

"If someone violates a very important rule that is rightly in place" Forcing people to dress how you want them to dress is not a good rule. That is the entire point I am making. It is a violation of their rights, so shaming them for wanting their freedom is wrong.

"Isn't it just as true that *you* are trying to control how people view sex and the human body?" Telling others they have to cover up is you trying to control them and strip them of their freedoms. Me saying they should be free to do what they want, does not in any way control you or anyone else. I value freedom not fascism.

[heavensgift2girls]

"how is my attempt to keep tighten standards any different from your attempt to loosen them?" Because you are harming people with your outdated beliefs, and trying to bring shame on others for living their own lives, just because you want to strip them of their rights and freedoms. Who are you to tell me my thighs are perverted and need to be hidden? Stop telling other people what to do with their own bodies.

This has nothing to do with theft of an inanimate object. This has to do with you wanting to control what other people are allowed to do with their own bodies, which then teaches the lesson that the human body is a sex object that should be shamed. That is completely different than some kid stealing fruit.

[Skadouchebag]

Saying that I am "forcing people to dress how I want them to dress" is like saying that someone trying to get people to stop eating fast food is "forcing people to eat what you want them to eat." Or saying that a politician making certain drugs illegal is "forcing people to put in their bodies what you want them to put in their bodies." There are certain foods that for the good of society, people genuinely should not eat. There are certain substances that for the good of society, people genuinely should not put in their bodies. There are certain ways that for the good of society, people genuinely should not dress.

[Skadouchebag]

It should've been obvious that the quote was just an example. If I object to a boy who steals my fruit, that does not mean I disapprove of boys in general or fruit in general -- it merely means that I disapprove of stealing. If I object to people who go naked in public, that does no mean that I disapprove of the human body in general or sex in general -- it merely means that I disapprove of public nudity.

[heavensgift2girls]

We are not discussing the fact that you disapprove of public nudity. We are discussing the fact that you want to make want laws in place to forbid a person from doing something. If you merely disapproved, but didn't want to make it illegal for people to enjoy their freedoms then I wouldn't have used the word force.

"Saying that I am "forcing people to dress how I want them to dress" is like saying that someone trying to get people to stop eating fast food is "forcing people to eat what you want them to eat." Or saying that a politician making certain drugs illegal is "forcing people to put in their bodies what you want them to put in their bodies." That is a statement that I will agree with. I also oppose such laws as they are in direct conflict with personal freedoms. If you want to live in a free country, then you must be free to make bad decisions. No one should be telling an adult what they are allowed to do with their own body or what they are allowed to put in it.

[Skadouchebag]

Don't ALL laws forbid a person from doing something?

And why would an adult b any different from a child in these circumstances? I honestly don't get why you'd think people should be allowed to make bad decisions. Do you honestly WANT people to make bad decisions? Human beings have a responsibility to look out for each other. Read this mytake: www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a11024-trans-what-how-does-that-work The people who founded Somalia had the same idea as you, and look how that turned out. Don't you realize what you're asking for? Do you really think abolishing laws would be worth the resulting chaos and loss of life? Sure public nudity could hardly be THAT disastrous, but according to you we're not talking about that.

[Skadouchebag]

Even if it wouldn't be disastrous, public nudity would still cause problems. We've both agreed that covering a given body part sexualizes it. When sex IS mutually desired between two people, the fewer body parts are sexualized in their culture, the less excitement there will be when they strip down. And everyone knows that unexciting sex makes for bad sex. Frankly, I'm surprised people n nudist colonies ever get it on at all.

Therefore, we should sexualize SOME parts, but not too many. chest, genitals, arse, and thigs seems like a happy medium to me.

[heavensgift2girls]

"Don't ALL laws forbid a person from doing something?" It is completely different to pass a law to protect you from having your rights taken away, such as the right to not be murdered, raped, or enslaved, and passing a law to strip you of your personal freedoms that isn't anyone's business.

"And why would an adult b any different from a child in these circumstances?" Are you serious? At least try to think your responses out before replying. A child does not have the ability or experience to make choices for themselves yet. There is a huge difference between an adult and a child. Telling a 2 year old they can't drive a car, and telling a forty year old what they are allowed to eat is completely different and you know that.

"Human beings have a responsibility to look out for each other." Not when we cross the line and protect them from themselves. When we do that we destroy that persons freedom.

[heavensgift2girls]

"Frankly, I'm surprised people n nudist colonies ever get it on at all." Yet they do get it on, and they are much happier with that lifestyle. Meaning you don't understand what you are talking about.

"Therefore, we should sexualize SOME parts," Go tell a feminist that and see how they feel about you wanting to purposely sexualize women, just so you can get a boner more easily.

"but not too many. chest, genitals, arse, and thigs seems like a happy medium to me." So what if that is a happy medium to you? What about people that don't agree? What if someone thinks everything should be covered, or nothing? Why should you get to decide and tell everyone else how to live their lives? If you want to remain covered then cover up. Let other people decide for themselves.

[Skadouchebag]

"It is completely different to pass a law to protect you from having your rights taken away, such as the right to not be murdered, raped, or enslaved, and passing a law to strip you of your personal freedoms that isn't anyone's business." Yes. And laws against public nudity protect me from having a premature sexual awakening as a child.

"A child does not have the ability or experience to make choices for themselves yet." Many adults don't either, such as all the Darwin award recipients.

"Not when we cross the line and protect them from themselves. When we do that we destroy that persons freedom." You said it yourself: We're protecting them from themselves. It is the duty of the wise to look out for the foolish, no matter how much the foolish object. Look at my profile Icon. That's me. Do you really want *me* to walk around the streets naked?

[Skadouchebag]

"Go tell a feminist that and see how they feel about you wanting to purposely sexualize women" Dude, I've told you several times now" I'm not trying to sexualize women, just certain body parts! Not even just female body parts!

"So what if that is a happy medium to you? What about people that don't agree? What if someone thinks everything should be covered, or nothing?" Well that's why we're having this conversation, aren't we? We're trying to come to an agreement.

[heavensgift2girls]

We have been over this. If you grew up in a society were it wasn't sexualized and was normal, then it wouldn't be a "sexual awakening". Pictures of girls in scantily clothes would just be viewed as pictures of women. Keep in mind that the pictures were intended for your father, and were hidden. Much like how you now use your lap top to enjoy something you don't intend for kids. So unless you want to give up your right to look at such pictures completely, another kid could find what is on your lap top. But I imagine you don't want to give up your right to look at pictures of women do you? You see when it is a right that is important to you as an adult it isn't fun when someone comes along and says you shouldn't be allowed to do that. Just think of all the children that wouldn't have a premature sexual awakening if you didn't look at those pictures. Shame on you for being an adult and enjoying your freedoms. Do you get the point I am making?

[heavensgift2girls]

Whether or not an adult has the ability to choose properly doesn't matter. It is their right to choose what type of life they want to live. We literally can not live in a free country if we don't allow someone to make choices we don't agree with. People also make bad choices as to who they marry. Should we go back to arranged marriages? Or better yet lets ban all sex, to stop STD's and unwanted pregnancies. After all you clearly think people are too stupid to decide these things for themselves.

It is not our duty to look out for the foolish. That is demeaning, insulting, and a violation of that persons rights.

I don't care if you walk around naked or not. If people have a problem with that they can get over it, just like people that have a problem seeing same sex couples can get over their issue of seeing them in public. We don't have a right not to be offended, nor should we have that right. Freedom of speech and a right not to be offended can not coexist.

[heavensgift2girls]

When you sexualize a part of a woman, then you sexualize the entire woman. The fact you want to do it to both genders doesn't make it any better.

Not everyone is going to agree. That is my point. Just let people decide that for themselves, and if you don't want to look, then turn your head.

You want to tell men and women they should both be ashamed for how they are currently dressing. Go to a beach and tell the men there they shouldn't' show their chest. Then find women and tell them how immoral it is for them to show their thighs and see what kinds of responses you get. Neither gender is going to appreciate being told how to dress.

[Skadouchebag]

I should've pointed out that I wasn't arguing against such pictures, but using them as an example. Even then, the problem wouldn't be in the fact that i was looking at that stuff on my laptop in the first place, but that I wasn't careful enough to keep it out of the child's hands, and/or that the child's parents weren't careful enough to keep the child away from other people's stuff. Also, I don't think that my dad leaving the magazine on the back of the toilet qualifies as hiding it.

People have their rights, but they also have an obligation to use them responsibly. If they repeatedly fail to use a given right responsibly, they ought to have that right revoked, at least until further notice. Just like how people have a right to drive, but they get this right taken away when they frequently speed, or drive drunk. If I continued to leave my laptop where a child could look at my history, it would be perfectly just for you to take away my right to look at pictures of scantily clad women.

[heavensgift2girls]

You are drawing a comparison between between drunk driving which literally kills people and leaving your lap top on the table that has never hurt anyone? You don't see what a stretch that was. They aren't even close enough to compare.

Besides the sites you look up, could still be accessed by a child from someplace else. Meaning the only way to stop it would be to shut those sites down completely. Regardless of how careful you were about your lap top, there are still people that want to take your right away to look at those pictures because they think they are harmful to society. Those people don't think you are making wise decisions, and want to control you as well. Do you see what happens to our rights when we try to protect people from themselves.

[Skadouchebag]

"A child does not have the ability or experience to make choices for themselves yet." "Whether or not an adult has the ability to choose properly doesn't matter." make up your mind. Does the ability to choose properly matter, or not? If adults have the right to choose what type of life they want to live despite not being able to to choose properly, then why shouldn't a child?

" People also make bad choices as to who they marry. Should we go back to arranged marriages?" The reason so many marriages were decided poorly is because they weren't founded in love. Arranged marriages were not founded in love either. While I do believe that people should only marry for certain reasons, the problem is that you can't prove intention, which is why the law does not get involved in matters where intention is key, such as the definition of pornography. You cannot prove what your intentions for marrying a given person were.

[Skadouchebag]

"When you sexualize a part of a woman, then you sexualize the entire woman." that makes no sense! I mean, we already consider vaginae sexual, but does that mean we consider women in general sexual?

"It is not our duty to look out for the foolish. That is demeaning, insulting" How is it insulting? by pointing out the fact that they are foolish? Look, thinking that nobody can tell you what to do is arrogant. If you are about to do something that would cost you dearly (such as taking a swim in shark-infested waters), but not wise enough to realize, and there was someone who *was* wise enough who could warn you, wouldn't you want them to keep you from killing yourself?

[Skadouchebag]

"You want to tell men and women they should both be ashamed for how they are currently dressing. Go to a beach and tell the men there they shouldn't' show their chest. Then find women and tell them how immoral it is for them to show their thighs and see what kinds of responses you get. Neither gender is going to appreciate being told how to dress."

You mean like how you're telling me how to think? If you truly lived by your principles, you wouldn't have even commented on my take. but you did, because you thought I needed to be corrected in an area where I was wrong. It's the same principle: If people are in the wrong, they need to be corrected, no matter how much they object. Be it in ideals, or how they dress.

[Skadouchebag]

"Besides the sites you look up, could still be accessed by a child from someplace else. Meaning the only way to stop it would be to shut those sites down completely." Or maybe the people in charge of THOSE computers could be more careful, too.

[heavensgift2girls]

You aren't making any sense and I am tired from pointing out all the flaws in your logic. There is a difference between warning someone of danger, and making it illegal for them to do it. Your comparison fails.

I am saying it is wrong to physically stop someone by passing a law, just because of what you think. I am not trying to pass a law to prevent you from disagreeing with me. Therefore once again your comparison fails.

Trying to blame other people for not watching their computers close enough to justify you keeping your right to look at girls, knowing that kids will still get through just proves your hypocrisy. You want the freedoms that are important to you, but you don't want to respect the freedoms that are important to someone else. That is called fascism. I support freedom, where we agree to let each other do things we don't always approve of.

[Skadouchebag]

If something *is* dangerous for people to do, then *why shouldn't* you pass a law against it? Shouldn't the law itself serve as a warning? that's what the American government passes laws for in the first place, to protect us.

It's just as important that parents keep track of what their kids are doing.

And it's not that my right to look at girls is *important* to me, it's that it's a *biological necessity*. My right to play videogames is very important to me, but if that ever turned out to endanger myself or someone else, I'd reluctantly give it up.

[Skadouchebag]

I should've said "if my right to play videogames turned out to *compromise my own or someone else's well-being*, I'd give it up"

[heavensgift2girls]

"If something *is* dangerous for people to do, then *why shouldn't* you pass a law against it?" Because of something called freedom.
"Shouldn't the law itself serve as a warning?" Nope.
"that's what the American government passes laws for in the first place, to protect us." This is simply not true. There are many unjust and harmful laws that can be found throughout history. Slavery, discriminatory voting rights, laws protecting corrupt industry. Clearly protecting us is not governments main concern.

There will always be a way to tie any personal freedom into some perceived threat to themselves or to society. If you use that as your standard of freedom, then you MUST be willing to ban ALL freedom. Otherwise we are just hypocrites striping others of their freedoms that are important to them, while making excuses about the freedoms that are important to us.

[Skadouchebag]

What's the point of trying to gain the "freedom" to do something if you weren't even going to use that freedom in the first place? "because I can" is never a good reason to do something.

Simply blocking off dangerous decisions is *not* restricting freedom.

The law shouldn't serve as a warning? Why not?

Basically, you're the kid in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzOo8Sh-J34

besides, you still haven't explained why not having the ability to make wise decisions matters for a child but not for an adult.

[heavensgift2girls]

"What's the point of trying to gain the "freedom" to do something if you weren't even going to use that freedom in the first place? "because I can" is never a good reason to do something." Some people do use that freedom, and their freedom needs to be respected. Just because YOU won't use that freedom, doesn't mean others should lose a freedom they would use. Doing something just because you can is the perfect reason to do something if you want to do it. That is what freedom is all about. Making choices for ourselves.

"Simply blocking off dangerous decisions is *not* restricting freedom." That is exactly what restricting freedom is. You can't eat the foods you enjoy, because they aren't healthy. You can't drink, because alcohol is bad for you. You can't have sex with another person, because you could spread STD's. You can't remain motionless for too long because it is unhealthy to not get enough exercise.

[heavensgift2girls]

How far do you want to take this line of thinking going until you lose all freedom in the name of what is safe? Do you really do everything you can, to be as safe as you possibly could? No you don't.

"besides, you still haven't explained why not having the ability to make wise decisions matters for a child but not for an adult." Yes I did. "A child does not have the ability or experience to make choices for themselves yet." You even quoted me and said something about some adults don't know how to either.

The real issue here is that you are ashamed of your body, and think other people should be ashamed of theirs. I am sorry you feel that way, but trying to pass laws to stop other people from living their lives the way they want is wrong. At some point you have to learn to deal with seeing people do things you don't agree with.

[heavensgift2girls]

If you really can't tell the difference between a personal freedom like going for a jog without a shirt, and trespassing on a minefield then you aren't even trying to think about it rationally.

[Skadouchebag]

"Doing something just because you can is the perfect reason to do something if you want to do it." Doing something because you can and doing something because you want to are two separate reasons. Arrogant people often do things solely because they can, despite the fact that they haven't the least bit of actual desire to do it.

"Yes I did. "A child does not have the ability or experience to make choices for themselves yet." You even quoted me and said something about some adults don't know how to either." Yes, but you said that in the case of the adults who have that same inability to make good choices, said inability doesn't matter. You haven't explained *why* it doesn't matter. This is your reasoning in a nutshell: "Children lack the ability to make good choices, which is why we should tell them what to do." "Many adults do indeed also lack the ability to make good choices, but that doesn't mean we should tell them what to do." Why not? How is it different?

[Skadouchebag]

"That is what freedom is all about. Making choices for ourselves." Oh really? Do you really think that slaves fought so hard because they merely "Wanted to make choices for themselves"? Do you really think that someone telling you to wear clothes or to not drive while drunk is the same as being completely denied a life, an education, or any control over your life? Do you really think being guided by laws as a cared-for citizen is the same as being pulled by chains as a sub-human piece of property? Because that's what you're acting like.

[Skadouchebag]

"The real issue here is that you are ashamed of your body, and think other people should be ashamed of theirs." You're jumping to conclusions. Don't try to tell me what my motives are. Even if I wasn't fat, I'd still think people should have the decency to cover themselves in public. I'm not doing this because I what to "stop other people from living their lives the way they want," I'm doing this because human beings have an obligation to follow morality and ethics, which are a higher authority than any person, and take precedence over our own petty desires.

"If you really can't tell the difference between a personal freedom like going for a jog without a shirt, and trespassing on a minefield then you aren't even trying to think about it rationally." That's not my point. My point is that you, like the kid in the video, refuse to acknowledge that people tell you what to do for a reason.

[Skadouchebag]

People don't tell you what to do because they can't stand to see people do things they don't agree with, they do it because they're concerned for your well being. Being concerned for another person's well being in spite of the fact that it wouldn't affect you is the very definition of altruism: the very center of morality and ethics, and also the thing that separates humans from reptiles who eat their own young.

[Iamhappynaked]

Some men can not handle an exposed female breast. As far as rape is concerned a fully clothed female can get raped. Man decides to rape he will do it with a fully clothed woman or a naked one. As far as a woman going top less it is her choice not man or society. It seems that the level of maturity has gone out the window. Since when is a female breast sexual? In most scenarios it is used for infant feeding. Nothing sexual about it. My wife has breast fed four babies without comments from the peanut gallery.
Yes there are women who make obscene comments seeing another female breast or a woman who decides to go pantie less or bra less.
So if you do not like the program you are watching close your eyes.

[Skadouchebag]

Breast-feeding is an exception. I believe that breast-feeding is acceptable in public.

Of course breasts are sexual. You honestly can't deny how big a role they play during sex, and it's been scientifically shown that they have an abundance of erotic nerve receptors.

I never once mentioned rape in the take. You did read it, right?

[biracialQT]

Lollll one day maybe you'll be able to wrap your tiny mind around it...

[Skadouchebag]

definition of the ad hoc fallacy: resorting to insults in an argument rather than actually making an attempt to explain why the other person is wrong.

[Kirah]

@biracialQT No arguments, just insults? I guess you lost.

[biracialQT]

@Kirah
With people like him i just refuse to even try...

[Skadouchebag]

What? I'm perfectly open to debate. Wait, let me guess; you're automatically assuming I'm a misogynist, aren't you? Well I'm not.

[biracialQT]

I am not assuming thhat you are mosogynistic, I'm assuming you have you have a veeery strong, slightly irrational, conservative opinion. I think in the total opposite direction and i simply find it hard to deal with your kind of people. Since you seem so eager to start a debate i will take one of the many points in your take, that i disagree with.
You said that girls should stop complaining about how bra's are uncomfortable, because mens underwear (which is only one piece) is also uncomfortable in certain situations.
My opinion is, if it is uncomfortable, why would you wear it? Why let society pressure you into hiding, covering up and making you feel uncomfortable? Especially when it's perfectly accepted for men (wether they are skinny, fat, muscular, chubby or ripped) to walk around without anything covering their upper body. I'm all for being comfortable and for that being socially Accepted, but then it has to be acceptable for both genders!

[Skadouchebag]

First, let me apologize for per-judging you.

"Why let society pressure you into hiding, covering up and making you feel uncomfortable?" I'm already wearing pants? What the heck is underwear hiding? And anyway, that's not the reason we wear underwear at all. Nobody covers themselves because society's pressuring them to, they genuinely realize that you simply don't go around naked. Besides, look at my profile pic. that's actually me. Would you *want* to see me walk around naked?

And as for it being acceptable for men to go topless, others here have already pointed out the fallacy of that argument.

[AdenKayStark]

It's trade off. If woman want to be topless there will be statistically more rapes and sexual assaults. So in theory feminists can't expect fewer rapes which they've been campaigning for years yet there increasing the likelyhood of it happening seems counter productive to me but I wouldn't seeing hot girls chests. Feminist lose either way loool. There will be more tits to oobjectify

[GirlsLie]

I think it's equally as bad if men go without shirts as well. I don't want to see some guys shirtless and I don't want to see a lot of those women's nipples.

If the public was a society strictly fully of adults then I wouldn't care who wore what honestly but when there are kids around everywhere, everyone should cover up a little or else it's just weird lol

[Skadouchebag]

Yeah. I wonder if little girls stare at well-shaped men as often as little boys stare at well-shaped women.

[Mesonfielde]

To be honest, a lot of social rules make zero sense, and if you actually go into what harm there would be from women not hiding their upper region, you'd see that objectively, there is none; so I personally see no point in why we should oppose a movement that only wants what makes sense.

[Skadouchebag]

Read my conversation with heavensgift2girls below.

[archiz]

you had me at 1.
before women didn t have to cover them up when you look into the old tribes and stuff.
surely wearing clothes is a practical issue. I agree with that.
but the issue here for me is why is the women's body often more sexualized than men's.
somewhere, through out history, the concept of being topless became an issue. the reasons why I don t really understand.

[Skadouchebag]

You mean like Cro-magnon tribes? When it comes to their society and culture, scientists can only make educated guesses at best about the Cro-magnon.

[Negrodamuss]

"Since men's pecs are just as arousing to women as women's breasts are to men"

Not even close. Why would they be? If women see them all the time, there is no real reason why they would spark as much in women as breasts do for men... especially considering how sexualized a woman's breasts are, and how more visually stimulated we are than women naturally

[Skadouchebag]

"If women see them all the time..." When was the last time you saw a man walking around topless outside of a place where you'd exercise or wear a swimsuit?

[Negrodamuss]

practically in the majority movies and tv shows that have been released as of late. It's not a taboo thing buddy.

[Skadouchebag]

you're using circular logic here. Just because it's not *considered* taboo doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

[Negrodamuss]

wtf? kid... no one ever said anything about whether it should or shouldn't be considered taboo. It's a matter of if it is, or is not. Right now, it is not. You can debate with that fact as long as you'd like, be my guest. But the truth is that women aren't nearly as turned on by a guy's chest as guys are to a woman's chest. You've got a lot to learn about women it seems. Take care

[Skadouchebag]

Well then I failed to explain myself correctly. Yes, sowing pecs is not considered a taboo. but back when it was, women were just as turned on by them as men are and were by boobs.

[Callidora]

Last I checked, there wasn't a law saying you had to wear a bra. You just have to have something covering your boobs. People who complain about bras, you don't have to wear one. Walk around in just a jumper if you want. Move where it's legal. Won't you get cold. There are much more pressing issues than who is allowed to be topless and who isn't. you can always go topless at home or in private. Ok my venting is over.

[Skadouchebag]

I posed that thing about bras because a lot of free-thenippleists use "because bras hurt" as a reason to let the nips out.

[mistixs]

"Won't you get cold" not if it's 100 degrees and sweaty and humid out...

[Anonymous]

im not even gonna read this and i agree 100000000000000000000000000000000% with you

seriously DUMBEST CRAP I EVER HEARD OF !!!

[Skadouchebag]

Well, you should read it anyway. Next time you get into an argument about it, you could link them to this.

[Opinion Owner]

will do lol

[Opinion Owner]

ok one point i disagree with

yes women are attracted to mens chests but its not the same way men are attracted to womens breasts lol I don't know if its even near it

[Goldie757]

...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJcKGA9UsAAliUo.jpg
...

[Skadouchebag]

As I said in the take, and as you'd know if you had actually read it, the only reason that changed was basically because a bunch of meatheads started protesting that they couldn't show off their full "beauty".

[Anonymous]

I'm always reminded of this scene - women really discriminate between shirtless guys ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejuK7MLm4OM

And I don't agree with this 'free the nipple' "movement"; there's a time and place for everything, but being topless in public isn't one of them

[Mustachekitteh]

YAY Vsauce! ^^ I've seen that video more than 3 times now. :D

[Anonymous]

I frankly feel the same way about toplessness as I do about wearing pajama pants. They're fine for certain situations, but everyday life isn't one of them. For either sex.

[Anonymous]

Are women distracted when they can see men's nipples under their shirt?

[Skadouchebag]

They probably were back when men had to cover them up.

[Anonymous]

Nobody except a nurse or a female doctor should see another person naked.

[Skadouchebag]

Not even a spouse?

[litost]

tbh when i go into the doctors i dont give a fuck what they have between their legs i want to get seen and get better