And you said I was crazy . .

And you said I was crazy . .

Bob
Bob

June 4th, 2010, 7:40 pm #1

Any of you who have been on this forum for the past few years undoubtedly remember our debates on top freedom. As you recall, my positiion was that it should not be allowed because the wrong people (aka ugly) would abuse the privilege. Not only was that labeled discriminatory, but some disagreed with my premise that only the ugly bods (those who want attention but rarely get it) would go bare.

Well, read this!

http://www.daytondailynews.com/lifestyl ... gId=746578
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 4th, 2010, 11:19 pm #2

Well since there is no picture- I can't say how "ugly" said person's boobies are- but since it said they were implants they should look pretty good since a competent plastic surgeon will make breasts that are aesthetically pleasing. Furthermore, since they are implants- they aren't really breasts at all- but bags of saline covered with skin. And in this case- it's not even a real female we are talking about.

It's the hypocrisy of boobie bans that I have a issue of- why can a old fat guy with big flabby breasts (ie- "gynecomastia") be permitted to stroll the beach topfree but a young woman with firm attractive breasts can not?

And why do you limited your "ugly-phobia" to breasts? What about ugly beer-bellies or bony knobby-knee legs or ugly wrinkled faces?
Quote
Like
Share

Brandon
Brandon

June 5th, 2010, 3:16 am #3

"why can a old fat guy with big flabby breasts (ie- "gynecomastia") be permitted to stroll the beach topfree but a young woman with firm attractive breasts can not? "

Because like it or not, in our society we consider the young woman's breasts to have a sexual element. We don't feel that way about old fat guys.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 5th, 2010, 12:40 pm #4

A few generations ago women's legs and ankles were considered "too sexual" to be seen in public. Women had to wear high button shoes and long dresses that hung to the floor. Now we see women's legs and ankles all the time- so the fact that something is considered "too sexual to be seen" is a arbitrary and changeable thing. Many European beaches (and even a few here in America) permit women to go topfree and society has not collapsed as a result.
Quote
Like
Share

Brandon
Brandon

June 5th, 2010, 10:17 pm #5

I would agree that what is considered "too sexual to be seen" is arbitrary and changeable.

But do you really think we are going to see in our lifetime in America the time when the female breasts are not considered sexual?
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 6th, 2010, 2:55 pm #6

Something doesn't have to be "non-sexual" to be exposable. Many men still find female legs sexy- but that doesn't mean that have to be hidden anymore.

As for when female top freedom will become acceptable in this country- I don't see it happening in the near future because we are in a conservative era right now but these things run in cycles and 10 or 20 years from now may be like the 1920s or the 1960s when there was great liberalization in dress.

Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

June 7th, 2010, 1:58 am #7

I think there is a time and place for everything. I don't necessarily object to nudity, depending upon the setting. I don't think it should be forced on anyone who doesn't wish to view it . . and that includes me, especially if the nude body in question is a transsexual. Lord knows, most people have a hard enough time making what God gave them look good, let alone switching in mid-stream. I know, I'm a prude.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 7th, 2010, 4:47 am #8

But what is "nudity" Bob? In 1910 a woman wearing shorts in public would have been arrested for "nudity". As would a shirtless man- even at the beach! Look at old photos of Coney Island- not a shirtless man there! So "nudity" is a arbitrary term that changes from time to time and place to place. And no doubt it will change from what it is today- one way or the other.
Quote
Like
Share

Brandon
Brandon

June 9th, 2010, 12:47 am #9

But has the definition of nudity changed that much in the last 60 years?

Women's bikinis have gotten smaller, but that is about it.

Fashion obviously changes. For instance when I was a kid in the 1970s, guys wore very short shorts where today guys wear shorts that are knee length or longer. But the definition of "nudity" really hasn't changed in the post WW2 era in America.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

June 9th, 2010, 3:05 am #10

Well there have been places where female topfreedom has been officially legalized. South Beach in Miami for example- because so many European tourists were accustom to sunbathing topfree and were offended when they couldn't here (bad for the tourist industry). And there have been a number of cases around the country where courts have ruled that female topfreedom is technically legal- although few women have taken advantage of it.

But aside the legal definition of nudity there has been a tremendous liberalization of public dress standards since the 1950s. I remember when adults wouldn't think of wearing shorts in public places like stores and shopping malls. Now this is routine. And I see kids going to school wearing stuff that would have gotten me expelled. I wasn't allowed to wear jeans, shorts or sneakers after elementary school. Now this is standard school attire for kids.

On the other hand, in some ways dress today is less liberal than in the 1970s when boy & men wore super-short shorts, tiny speedo swimsuits and skin-tight pants. And for women- bra-freedom was pretty accepted in the 1970s but seems taboo now.

Also- nude swimming which was once common at YMCAs and summer camps is virtually non-existent today.
Quote
Like
Share