The folks who have been replying to my posts seem to think that the status quo is wrong and their version of what should be is right and will win out in the end: "Employers shouldn't care or have any say if a female employee's breasts bounce or her nipples stick out like sore thumbs." In your world, maybe, but in the real world (21st Century USA), no way.
No matter how strongly you think your way should prevail, remember that there are people with all kinds of other opinions and positions . . . and they all think their way is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong . . or wrong and fascist.
The people who think adults should be allowed to have sex with children use the same arguments that you use about "breast freedom": "Its society that is ridiculously uptight and needs to change" . . . "Its sex, a natural function . . why are they making it seems dirty? . . get over it!" . . . . "Its insulting and wrong to say that children can't know their own minds, know what they want . . that they can't feel love . . lust . . for someone and want to be with them . . that they can't want pleasure too" . . . . "If we keep pushing for change, the archaic thinking that has predominated in the past will give way to the enlightened view that adult-child relations is a beautiful thing." And these folks feel just as certain about their position as you are about yours.
So, who's right? In our modern secular society . . moral relativism . . . the lines of right and wrong get clouded . . . intentionally so. We start thinking that something is right for society because WE want it. We don't see excesses because to us its not excessive. And, to someone else, the things we find excessive and want controlled (like sex with kids, or sex with animals, or puiblic defecation) are "perfectly normal". And, if you or I object, we are told that we have no right . . society has no right . . . to control the individual and their body.
You can try to claim that your cause is different . . you don't want anyone to link bralessness or toplessness, or full public nudity . . or anything else you favor . . . with disgusting, immoral things. But, disgusting and immoral to who? To you? Who ARE you? What is your right to hold predjudicial views and impose them upon others?
My answer is: "WE ARE SOCIETY. Society has that right . . the majority of people have that right to decide what is allowed and what is forbidden . . . what is permitted in one's private quarters but not acceptable in the public arena. Society, though you may disagree with the decisioon, has that right.
"WE ARE SOCIETY. Society has that right . ."
"Society" does not actually exist. It's a sort of made up thing that people can point to and say "That's the cause of [criminal behaviour, intolerance, drug use, politicians, etc]" (or often instead, "that's the Thing of Authority that I say agrees with me so that makes me right"). At best, you can refer to a persons social environment, but that will vary between individuals, sometimes by extremes, even for people living in the same general location.
You might also refer to "group of like-minded people around me", but that's not a "society" either, though if it constitutes your personal environment, it may seem that way. But it's just your particular group.
If you want to refer to "society" as being "everybody", or at least "the majority", you also have to realise that you can rarely get agreement on anything more than the broadest of principles. but when you start getting detailed, for any group large enough, their agreement will break down as they quibble over the details[1].
[1] My solution to terrorism is to give them all unlimited, unmonitored Internet access to plan all their attacks. Within a month they will be quarreling over which shades of the colour "red" are blasphemous, and quickly start fighting each other instead.
