| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cheri
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 3:18:40 PM
|
Stu, According to several state supreme courts and in Ontario, Canada, the female breast is considered equal. Private parts per common law does not include the breasts. It's healthier to go bra-less per several research studies. I'm aware of improved breast health personally.
I will use our riding mower without a shirt. It's cooler and much more comfortable. I am always nude when possible, clothed when practical.
Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3519 |
 |
|
|
Mark_497
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 10/19/2004 : 3:54:30 PM
|
Stu, you mentioned that there are cultural issues that make topfreedom unacceptable in our society. I have done exstensive multicultural study into the impact on our society concerning nudity and topfreedom. The evidence all shows that we have a variety of social problems that are nearly epidemic in proportion to the more liberal industrialized societies. Education not imposition of my belief system is what I as a nudist would want to be known for. If a woman is comfortable with herself, we should be mature enough to leave her alone. It's healthier for her and does me no harm.
Mark
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 28 |
|
|
|
nudeisntlewd
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 4:56:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by StuFox
As a non-nudist, I think female toplessness should be confined to either the under 5-year-olds, or to nudist beaches.
Female breasts aren't like male breasts, that's why men don't wear bras and don't breastfeed babies.
Stu
Agreed. They are different and serve a different function. But all our other "junk" is different too. To me it's the question of whether or not society can become comfortable with the sight of them. I know I can.
Randy 
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1191 |
|
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 4:56:35 PM
|
Cheri
I know there are different rules/laws for different countries. Where I live there is no such recognition. As to whether or not it's 'healthier' for a woman to go braless, that, according to my medical student daughter, is debatable. My own wife would never think of going topless not only because of the 'decency' issue, but also because she does not feel comfortable without the support a bra gives her.
Of course, we all have different experiences and your experience is valid for you. You enjoy nudity - Personally, I hate being naked and will never let anyone else see me in that condition.
Mark
Do people REALLY need 'educating? What particular deficiencies in our knowledge have you identified? And how do you advocate these deficiencies should be rectified? Presumably you wish to achieve this with the informed consent of those you intend to 'educate'?
There are plenty of places a woman can go without a top whilst causing offence to no-one. If she chooses to disregard the feelings and comfort of other people who she knows are able to see her, then the woman is being inconsiderate - in fact in some places she is also breaking the law.
Randy,
Of course you can be comfortable with seeing naked breasts - you are a nudist. But most of us aren't nudists and so we have different sensibility thresholds to people like yourself.
Stu
|
Edited by - StuFox on 10/19/2004 4:58:52 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
Mark_497
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 5:25:57 PM
|
Hello again Stu,
My statement about people needing to be educated comes from this. Breasts are not sexual objects. Even in the Bible when God made clothing for Adam and Eve it was at best a full loin cloth and at worst a g-string for both of them, but Eve's garment definately had her topless. You probably don't know this but approximately 12,000 women in America are arrested annually for the simple act of breast feeding. We are the only country in the world that does this. We are also the only society in the world that would suggest that a woman take a baby to the bathroom and set on the toilet to feed them. I for one have no intention of eating dinner in the bathroom. We also have the highest rate of pornography in the entire world. Maybe we need to learn something because our stance on morality is not working.
Mark
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 28 |
|
|
|
Datona
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 6:01:46 PM
|
StuFox,
First, welcome to the forum. I am fairly new myself, but I "lurked" around for some while before making my first post. I believe this is a "good" site.
I have to agree with you. In this culture, a woman's breasts are considered sexual-and they are not the same. They hardly have the same connotations as men's breasts.
With that in mind, I do agree the law should view them "differently." A woman who wishes to go "topfree", certainly is entitled to, but at a nudist beach or resort.
It's my opinion that most women wouldn't have a problem with that-and would not want to be "gawked at" if they went top free.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
StuFox
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 6:15:21 PM
|
Hi Mark
Do you really believe in the Adam and Eve stuff? Wow! I didn't realise people still thought they were real people. Sorry, but as an atheist I am far more inclined towards the Darwinist theory of evolution because it seems so much more logical to me. I always regarded the Adam and Eve story as religious alligory.
"You probably don't know this but approximately 12,000 women in America are arrested annually for the simple act of breast feeding. We are the only country in the world that does this."
Here in the UK we don't usually arrest women for breastfeeding in public, but there is still some social disapproval if they do it openly. Even if that were acceptable, for a woman to wander around a (non-nudist) beach or park with her breasts exposed is a pretty rude thing to do. I'm not advocating that they should be automatically arrested for doing this, but certainly warned in the first instance.
Datona
Thanks for your welcome. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one here who finds the idea of women wandering about topless in front of all and sundry - kids included - to be unacceptable.
Nudists are, on the whole, a considerate bunch and in my experience the last thing they want is to cause offence. It doesn't hurt from time to time to remind them that what they consider to be harmless can cause deep angst and acute discomfort among committed textiles.
Stu
|
Edited by - StuFox on 10/19/2004 6:17:47 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 22 |
|
|
|
dragonfly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 9:12:09 PM
|
I agree in our culture womens breast are considered sexual as do other cultures. Were I see a differance is the others can seperate the bare breast itself from sex as we nudist seperate nudity from the sex act. My wife will be the first to admit see likes looking at a mans well developed chest and yes that can be a turn on for her at times. Remember that untill the late 1920s or 1930s men were forced to keep their chest covered. New York was the first state to make top free men legal and guess what in 1992 the same state made top free women legal. Look at it a nother way take away the ability to lactate after child birth does a womens breast surve any more function than a mans?
Let women have the right to go topless everyone else will learn to accept in time.
Tom
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 16 |
|
|
|
Datona
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 11:49:39 PM
|
If I read this right, what StuFox is saying is he doesn't want to be imposed upon in public areas. I assume StuFox isn't going to nude beaches-and then complaining about seeing breasts.
I don't find the position unreasonable-it's not a case of who's right and who's wrong-it's about establishing permissible conduct in a public area.
We live in a democratic society-and if we can't all agree-majority has to rule. Where I am, I don't see women walking around, exposing their breasts for all to see-as something the majority of people would accept. I don't even see women wanting to do it. It certainly isn't something that is necessary for one's well being as a person as well.
Given that it fails a balance of fairness as applied to others-isn't inherent to a woman's well being-this very modest restriction does seem to be in the public's greater interest.
My thoughts...
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
Mark_497
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 07:08:22 AM
|
Hello Stu,
I think that I have not communicated well. There are appropriate times and places for nudity and or toplessness. I personally do not believe that toplessness is an issue. It has become one through the culturalization of our society, which happened in the U.K. in the 1500's. It has been that way here in America since the Puritans arrived. I will now borrow a phrase I saw. "Nude when possible, clothed when practical."
Take care,
Mark
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 28 |
|
|
|
dragonfly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 07:54:14 AM
|
I will agree thereare places for both men and women where being topless would be inapropreate. I am also not saying that a woman would have to go topless but that she should have the right to make that choise. Lets not forget our fore fathers founded this country for freedom and individuals rights. Over time laws were inacted that have removed some of those freedoms and rights. I'm not advocating anarcy here just remove the laws inacted making a womens bare breast ilegal. By passing these laws we as a sociaty have sexulized and vilified the breast to the point we're at now were a quick flash of a nipple sends people into an uproar.
Tom
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 16 |
|
|
|
Datona
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 08:46:47 AM
|
"Lets not forget our fore fathers founded this country for freedom and individuals rights."
DragonFly,
The US Constitution does not protect nudity and people like StuFox have the right to be left alone.
I thought your comment about breasts and uproar was interesting. It made me think of the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident-and uproar. I understand there were huge fines when this thing went on the air.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 18 |
|
|
|
nudeisntlewd
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 09:18:32 AM
|
Randy,
Of course you can be comfortable with seeing naked breasts - you are a nudist. But most of us aren't nudists and so we have different sensibility thresholds to people like yourself.
Stu
At the risk of being rude, I have to say duh, of course I’m comfortable with it because I’m a nudist. But what I can’t fathom is why a non-nudist would come to a place like this and think he would and be even marginally successful in convincing nudists that we should cover a ladies bosom.
I also don’t understand how someone who professes to be an atheist would take exception to nudity in the first place. Particularly just female breast nudity. If we are nothing more than animals, and they are only biological tools for feeding, how is it less moral than seeing cow teats? Also limiting female top-free to the age of 5? Would seeing something a child was offered to squeeze and suck for nourishment several years ago scar her now if she were able to see them and show her chest 5 to 7 years before they begin to develop on her? Are you kidding?
"You probably don't know this but approximately 12,000 women in America are arrested annually for the simple act of breast feeding. We are the only country in the world that does this."
Rather, I don’t believe this statistic. I’d love to know where you got that astonishing number of 12,000 breastfeeding arrests in America. The only source for that information that I would even consider being accurate, would be arrest records. I’ve never in my life heard of one woman being arrested in America for breast-feeding. For public nudity or going topless, but not feeding. I’ve heard of some being mildly harassed for it, (and not by the police, but by disgusted citizens) but never arrested. I witnessed breastfeeding with no incident whatsoever sitting at a parade in a very small, dare I say backward town in northern Minnesota in 1976. 1976. Practically in the dark ages by today’s standards of acceptance of public breastfeeding.
Do you really believe in the Adam and Eve stuff? Wow! I didn't realise people still thought they were real people. Sorry, but as an atheist I am far more inclined towards the Darwinist theory of evolution because it seems so much more logical to me. I always regarded the Adam and Eve story as religious alligory.
I don’t like to get into religion because everyone is entitled to their beliefs and everyone has their own. And that’s good. That’s America. But I submit that everyone, without exception, is religious in one form or another. It takes as much or more faith in atheism as it does in any other religion. There is this idea that nothing that came from nowhere, exploded and made everything-the “Big Bang Theory.” That theory is nothing less than belief in magic. Then that material just decided to chemically produce plants and animals and then us. That is more illogical than the idea that these things came about by supernatural means that cannot be understood.
Several people made reference as to whether or not the female breasts were sexual objects. Sure, they serve a specific biological function. But they also are part of the attraction package. In fact, every part of the female as well as the male body is sexually attractive in some way to some one. Beautiful eyes, as well as being nice to look at are made to see. Lips made to talk, eat and drink can be attractive to see and touch. Legs, arms, chest, hands-the list goes on. The point is: Anything can be attractive, but most things are not hidden from view. Whether you believe these members are part of God’s beautiful creation or the beautiful architecture of nature, they are at once sexual and not sexual. In either case, they are not things to be hidden away by shame. The form you have is not your fault and it’s not wrong. I see no more reason to hide the breast in shame than I would see reason in hiding the eyes or any oth
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1191 |
|
|
|
vealj
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 10:13:58 AM
|
quote:
In 1931, a 70-year-old Toronto man was hauled into court for exposing his "manly chest" when he "neglected to pull down the blind while changing his shirt before the window at his home... Members of the United Church office staff, which premises face [his] apartment, took offence and John was arrested, charged with indecent exposure." The magistrate treated him "leniently" because the accused was a man of "the best character."
The above was from an article on a Canadian web site but it illustrates how society evolves and "grows up". Eventually women's breasts will be de-criminalized in this country too and then it won't cause any more stir than bare chested men do today. It's a matter of conditioning. Whoda' thunk back in 1931 that someday it would actually be legal for a man to appear in public without a shirt and without causing the promised riots and horrified fainting of all subjected to it?
Take care and ...
Keep it Bare !!!
- veal
http://www.vealj.com/naturist.html
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 285 |
|
|
|
sailordave
Forum Member
|
Posted - 10/20/2004 : 10:15:39 AM
|
Stu, let's look at the situations in which men normally go topless. The first place or situation I can think of involve athletic activity in which one team takes off their shirt and the other team leaves them on or jogging. For many women, doing such athletic activity like soccer, jogging, and basketball can be painful for their breast if done topless depending on breast size. The women I did see jogging nude had small breast. The next situation is within their own yard when doing some yard work. So it's OK with you that some pot bellied hairy man boobs be exposed when doing work on his own yard but not a woman's breast when she's working within her own yard? The other place is on the beach, not just nude beaches. I've been to beaches in Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Malta, and Bulgaria and though the beach wasn't nude there were women laying out topless without being arrested or creating a distubance. I find it funny that an admitted athiest would have problem with bare breast since this is a result of centuries of incorrect religious teaching. Question, why is an athiest against bare breast? I understand the point of view of someone who's deeply religious but you've got me perplexed. Do you think that if bare breast was labeled as not a crime women would automatically doff their tops and shake their boobies at the grocery store, shopping mall, at work, or walking down the street? It's legal for men to go topless yet you don't see men doing this and most women are more reasonable when it comes to what's appropriate in what situation. Besides, I thought with the fog in England you wouldn't even be able to see them if they were bare, hehe
We the willing who are led by the unknown must do the impossible for the ungrateful.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 388 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Topless Equality
