Thanks, mizemm

[conuly]

Go read.

"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't," the Los Angeles Times quoted Liana Johnsson as saying. "This is the only thing left that men are legally allowed to do and, for women, they have to register as a sex offender. The real issue is there should be equal protection under the law," Johnsson told the newspaper.

Perfectly true. *gives Johnsson a cookie*

"We already have too many sexual assaults in society. If the state encourages women to show their breasts to men and boys at public beaches and parks, inappropriate treatment of women and girls will only worsen."

Allowing something isn't the same as encouraging it. Furthermore, I doubt that demystifying the breast would increase assult. Even if it did, so what? The solution isn't to ask women to go out in burqas (which is where this creepy troll logic eventually leads), it's to deal with people who sexually assult women.

There are good reasons for modesty laws, Thomasson said -- "to protect the innocence of women and girls and to promote a decent society supportive of children and families."

1. What innocence?
2. Come to think of it, what could be more innocent than the human form?
3. WTF? Nothing here goes against my ideas of a decent society. In fact, it seems more supportive of children and families since it'd lessen legal complaints against breastfeeding.

Thomasson said he would not be surprised to "see this crazy bill introduced by a Democrat politician and supported by many Democrat colleagues" -- and he is urging Californians to "call your state legislators right away to flood them with opposition.""

I've got friends in California. PLEASE, call your state legislators.

Allowing nude [sic] sunbathing at public parks and beaches will ruin family outings and promote a terrible role model for children," he concluded.

Okay, this calls for a poll.

[Poll #427407]

Comments

[the-turtle-girl.livejournal.com]

*snort* I love that whole thing about innocent people in California. LOL.

[conuly]

*nods*

[leora.livejournal.com]

I hate the argument that women must cover themselves, because otherwise they shall provoke male lust, which is obviously impossible to contain and unreasonable to expect men to control. I prefer the argument that does not require women to wear burkas and instead says that people can learn to act like decent human beings, learn that no means no, and respect other people's boundaries regardless of what that person is wearing.

[conuly]

I suspect, actually, that all these "uncontrollable lusts" would be a lot more controllable if the body weren't always hidden away.

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

Oh man that sounds like an awesome bill. I'd love to be able to go around topless, especially in the summer.

I'd call with support but I'm terrified of calling people on the phone... know of any email addresses?

[conuly]

Sorry, ducky. You can write, if you find your legislator's addresses.

[rho]

I have to say that I'd consider being disturbed by something like that to be a Good Thing. Having one's preconceptions challenged from time to time is decidedly healthy.

[conuly]

What, going topless? Or nudity?

[bastardsword.livejournal.com]

I'm all for santionced nudity.

However, get it near food (if it's bottoms-off) and I get the weebies. That's the only restriction I'd place on it.

-Kimothy

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Don't worry. After all, men can legally run around half-naked in most states, but yet restaurants still post signs about "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Requiring bottoms as well is just a logical extension.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

We must protect the innocence of women lest they see their breasts!

You know, I always found the "might provoke rapes" to be a good reason to keep men locked up or wearing shock collars. Why do WE suffer because men are animals? Don't we have dangerous animals destroyed (like alligators over 8 feet, where I live)?

[targaff.livejournal.com]

Just for the record, I find your last paragraph no less objectionable than any of the things that render conuly irate above.

[farraige.livejournal.com]

Having answered positively to the majority of questions, I feel the need to justify my position. I don't mind what people do so long as it's environmentally appropriate. However, in England the lower classes take the idea of acceptability into shops, restaurants, buses, the Underground and other public places and this doesn't make outings very pleasant. I don't like looking at or standing next to a sweaty torso no matter whether it smells or not. The same rule, to me, applies to public parks. I do not understand why people would want to splay out anywhere outside a beach or their own back garden.

... and the objectives of physical attractiveness or absence of it bear little relevance to the concept of decency.

[conuly]

... and the objectives of physical attractiveness or absence of it bear little relevance to the concept of decency.

Yeah, I know, but I didn't want people saying "blah blah blah, just fine except that this one guy was SO UGLY!!!!". This isn't a locked poll, and I linked to it elsewhere, so it could happen.

I do not understand why people would want to splay out anywhere outside a beach or their own back garden.

Does everyone have a backyard there? If not, one'd think that the park is an acceptable alternative. THat's what it's there fore, after all, to take the place of a yard.

I don't mind what people do so long as it's environmentally appropriate.

I'm not sure what this means....

[usnbfs.livejournal.com]

If we all started running around naked the following generations would see nothing offensive in it, as there is absolutely nothing naturally offensive in being naked. That's a cultural invention. Or something along those lines.
I'm very supportive of naked people. But we (all cultures that see something wrong in nudity) need more people (who are not generally seen as pretty) taking off their clothes.

[conuly]

On the OTHER hand, there's limits. It's easier to talk about how wonderful nudity is when you're sweltering. Bit hard in the middle of winter.

[catwoman980.livejournal.com]

You should know that here in austin, a section of the lake is called "hippy hollow." It's legal to be completely nude there.

To me, toplessness is the same as full nudity in as much as who the fuck cares about either? As long as nobody is using it as a way to be sexual with children (only people 18 and up are allowed in hippy hollow) or people who aren't consenting then I have no problem with full nudity in public.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

To add to the fun, I thought you'd find this linky interesting... A bunch of women of all ages here in CA made a nude/semi-nude calendar to raise money for their city's fire department, only to have the city refuse to touch the money because of the subject material:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/30/BELLES.TMP

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify, by "here in CA" I meant "here in the state" -- Carmel, the city in question, is waaaaaay South of me.

[deathchibi.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit late, but jebus chirps. Men have 'em, too. Babies eat off of them. It's not like we don't know what's under women's shirts.

Besides, being comfortable with nudity means people are less OMG BOOB=SEXLUST!

[readerravenclaw.livejournal.com]

I think it's an issue of what the majority prefers. If a majority of families/people will feel uncomfortable going to beaches or taking children to beaches where there is nudity or semi-nudity, then such nudity should not be allowed. And saying that the taboo of nudity is just a cultural thing and therefore should be ignored isn't logical.

[conuly]

How about saying "it's discriminatory"? Because if women can't go topless, men shouldn't be allowed to either.

[rantinan.livejournal.com]

Note that i answered yes to the sight of a topless man sunbathing. this is because I KNOW the sight of paunchy hairy bellys would offend.

I dont CARE. i never will. ohh and since in on the otheside of the date line and i CAN

*hugs* Happy birthday oh empress of the red pen!

[the-turtle-girl.livejournal.com]

*snort* I love that whole thing about innocent people in California. LOL.

[conuly]

*nods*

[leora.livejournal.com]

I hate the argument that women must cover themselves, because otherwise they shall provoke male lust, which is obviously impossible to contain and unreasonable to expect men to control. I prefer the argument that does not require women to wear burkas and instead says that people can learn to act like decent human beings, learn that no means no, and respect other people's boundaries regardless of what that person is wearing.

[conuly]

I suspect, actually, that all these "uncontrollable lusts" would be a lot more controllable if the body weren't always hidden away.

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

Oh man that sounds like an awesome bill. I'd love to be able to go around topless, especially in the summer.

I'd call with support but I'm terrified of calling people on the phone... know of any email addresses?

[conuly]

Sorry, ducky. You can write, if you find your legislator's addresses.

[rho]

I have to say that I'd consider being disturbed by something like that to be a Good Thing. Having one's preconceptions challenged from time to time is decidedly healthy.

[conuly]

What, going topless? Or nudity?

[bastardsword.livejournal.com]

I'm all for santionced nudity.

However, get it near food (if it's bottoms-off) and I get the weebies. That's the only restriction I'd place on it.

-Kimothy

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Don't worry. After all, men can legally run around half-naked in most states, but yet restaurants still post signs about "No shirt, no shoes, no service."

Requiring bottoms as well is just a logical extension.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

We must protect the innocence of women lest they see their breasts!

You know, I always found the "might provoke rapes" to be a good reason to keep men locked up or wearing shock collars. Why do WE suffer because men are animals? Don't we have dangerous animals destroyed (like alligators over 8 feet, where I live)?

[targaff.livejournal.com]

Just for the record, I find your last paragraph no less objectionable than any of the things that render conuly irate above.

[farraige.livejournal.com]

Having answered positively to the majority of questions, I feel the need to justify my position. I don't mind what people do so long as it's environmentally appropriate. However, in England the lower classes take the idea of acceptability into shops, restaurants, buses, the Underground and other public places and this doesn't make outings very pleasant. I don't like looking at or standing next to a sweaty torso no matter whether it smells or not. The same rule, to me, applies to public parks. I do not understand why people would want to splay out anywhere outside a beach or their own back garden.

... and the objectives of physical attractiveness or absence of it bear little relevance to the concept of decency.

[conuly]

... and the objectives of physical attractiveness or absence of it bear little relevance to the concept of decency.

Yeah, I know, but I didn't want people saying "blah blah blah, just fine except that this one guy was SO UGLY!!!!". This isn't a locked poll, and I linked to it elsewhere, so it could happen.

I do not understand why people would want to splay out anywhere outside a beach or their own back garden.

Does everyone have a backyard there? If not, one'd think that the park is an acceptable alternative. THat's what it's there fore, after all, to take the place of a yard.

I don't mind what people do so long as it's environmentally appropriate.

I'm not sure what this means....

[usnbfs.livejournal.com]

If we all started running around naked the following generations would see nothing offensive in it, as there is absolutely nothing naturally offensive in being naked. That's a cultural invention. Or something along those lines.
I'm very supportive of naked people. But we (all cultures that see something wrong in nudity) need more people (who are not generally seen as pretty) taking off their clothes.

[conuly]

On the OTHER hand, there's limits. It's easier to talk about how wonderful nudity is when you're sweltering. Bit hard in the middle of winter.

[catwoman980.livejournal.com]

You should know that here in austin, a section of the lake is called "hippy hollow." It's legal to be completely nude there.

To me, toplessness is the same as full nudity in as much as who the fuck cares about either? As long as nobody is using it as a way to be sexual with children (only people 18 and up are allowed in hippy hollow) or people who aren't consenting then I have no problem with full nudity in public.

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

To add to the fun, I thought you'd find this linky interesting... A bunch of women of all ages here in CA made a nude/semi-nude calendar to raise money for their city's fire department, only to have the city refuse to touch the money because of the subject material:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/30/BELLES.TMP

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify, by "here in CA" I meant "here in the state" -- Carmel, the city in question, is waaaaaay South of me.

[deathchibi.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit late, but jebus chirps. Men have 'em, too. Babies eat off of them. It's not like we don't know what's under women's shirts.

Besides, being comfortable with nudity means people are less OMG BOOB=SEXLUST!

[readerravenclaw.livejournal.com]

I think it's an issue of what the majority prefers. If a majority of families/people will feel uncomfortable going to beaches or taking children to beaches where there is nudity or semi-nudity, then such nudity should not be allowed. And saying that the taboo of nudity is just a cultural thing and therefore should be ignored isn't logical.

[conuly]

How about saying "it's discriminatory"? Because if women can't go topless, men shouldn't be allowed to either.