![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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]
"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]
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 09:19 pm (UTC)And this has NOTHING to do with a distate for breast-feeding. My mother nursed all her children, my youngest brother until he was two years old, and my aunts all nursed their own kids - and yet none of them - not my aunts and not my mother - would want to bring their sons to a place where there were topless women. The fact that some people feel that bodies shouldn't be completely exposed doesn't necessarily mean that they're ashamed of their bodies, it just means they don't feel they should be paraded around in public. You might not be able to understand that, but you should respect the fact that other people have different feelings about issues of that sort.
And I know what you're going to tell me: that it's fine for them to have these feelings, but they shouldn't force them on others. But you know what? When it comes to cultural "taboos" - if that's what you want to reduce it to - it's the majority that counts, as long as no one is actually being harmed or discriminated against, and in this case, you absolutely cannot say that women are being discriminated against, because there are just as many women who are against topless sunbathing as there are men. Quite possibly more.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 09:29 pm (UTC)Actually, it's really not. There's no reason that we can't just have everything in stalls. Most people don't have urinals or segregated bathrooms in their own homes, and many places have separate bathrooms with no stalls - each bathroom is just a toilet and sink. There's no need for the difference.
If it was an Asian culture you'd respect it, but because it's the culture of your neighbors, you don't?
I don't respect discriminatory practices. Period. I have nothing against saying "neither men nor women can be topless". This is fair. I don't respect cultures that say women have to cover up when men don't, or that men can work when women can't, even though it's a "cultural" thing.
The fact that some people feel that bodies shouldn't be completely exposed doesn't necessarily mean that they're ashamed of their bodies, it just means they don't feel they should be paraded around in public.
Going topless isn't the same as completely exposing your body. That is going nude. Let's please stay on topic, because I'm not going into a discussion about nudity.
there are just as many women who are against topless sunbathing as there are men. Quite possibly more.
Interesting point. Do you know that for a fact? I could put up another poll, but my polls aren't exactly scientific.
Not that it matters. If many black people were happy being kept out of white colleges in the south, and were happy with substandard treatment, that wouldn't make such treatment fair, or non-discriminatory. Nor would it be right just because the white majority said it was right.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 10:29 pm (UTC)As you might be able to guess, I'm not. :)
I do like to argue, and even though I'm quite aware that arguing with you on this topic is about as useless as banging my head against a wall, I'm going to do it anyway. :)
First, I will admit that my point of view is biased, because I'm religious, and believe in certain absolutes in the area of modesty. But I'm going to try to present my argument from an entirely secular point of view.
So: the first thing I need you to agree to is the physical differences between men and women do require at least some degree of different treatment. A woman is the one who gets pregnant, carries around her baby for nine months or so, and then often nurses her child. Right? Typically, in our society/culture, a mother is also the one who is usually - not always, but usually - more involved in caring for younger children than is the father. Wouldn't you say that a mother with three small children should be exempt from a war-time draft, more than a father of three small children? (Honestly, at this point, I'm not even sure if you're going to agree to this, but let's assume you do.) In a wartime situation, captured female soldiers are more likely to be raped than men; don't you think that should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to send female soldiers to situations where they might be captured? Studies have shown that girls and boys often do better academically when in all-boys or all-girls schools. Don't you think such schools should be allowed, at least if they're private schools, for those people who want that, and believe in that?
When I used the phrase "completely exposed" I was actually referring to full nudity; I was trying to draw a parallel. You may not consider a topless women to be partially nude, and you share that view with many others - but the fact remains that many, many women WOULD consider themselves to be partially nude if they were topless, and many boys do see toplessness as partial nudity. Whereas very, very few people consider topless men to be partially nude. You know, that whole deal with just trunks for swimsuits for men, and two-pieces or a full-trunk bathing suit for women?
Would you really feel comfortable walking around on a beach with no top on? Don't you think you'd attract extra stares if you did? Whereas a boy walking around with no top at a beach is completely typical. Is it really such a difficult stretch to consider that some women feel uncomfortable allowing their sons to view what they consider to be nudity?
Just because there's a difference between men and women in this area doesn't automatically mean that there's discrimination involved. Or rather, there is discrimination involved - discriminations are being made between men and women - but you know what? The concept of outlawing discrination can be taken too far. Where's it going to stop? At colleges not being allowed to discriminate based on a student's intelligence? At being saddled with a lawsuit because you advertise for a female roommate and a male wants the spot and you refuse it to him? At girls being drafted into the army? And to elaborate on that last point: if you agree that mothers with small children shouldn't be part of the draft, isn't that discrimination against the women who chose not to have children? Or if you say that neither women nor men with small children should have to go fight, again, isn't that discrimination against people who chose not to have children? And don't try to argue that drafts shouldn't exist altogether. Are you going to tell me that there shouldn't have been drafts during World War II? Because the drafts were necessary to get enough soldiers to fight the war. Or should the American government have rather said, well, we don't have enough volunteers, we'll just have to sit around and watch millions of people being tortured and murdered?
It's getting late, and I know my argument isn't even approaching any sort of organization or focus, so I'll end here, and resume arguing when I get back from work tomorrow.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 11:12 pm (UTC)Actually, I don't know enough about it. Let's say that I approve of the sentiment, but I don't know enough about the actual text of the proposed amendment to make a fair judgment.
I do like to argue, and even though I'm quite aware that arguing with you on this topic is about as useless as banging my head against a wall, I'm going to do it anyway. :)
Ditto, ditto. Those arguments can be the best, because, honestly, once you convince somebody of your view, where do you go from there? But they can also be the worst, if you inadvertantly stumble upon a sensitive topic for somebody. Ask me about the whole auryanne debacle sometime....
But I'm going to try to present my argument from an entirely secular point of view.
That's good, because I'm not religious, and refuse to have conversations with people who try to prove things religiously. I can't be civil during those, and then I feel bad for insulting people's beliefs. And I *always* end up doing that, even though I generally think that religion is a good thing, so long as you don't use it as an excuse for bad things (for example, bombing things).
(Honestly, at this point, I'm not even sure if you're going to agree to this, but let's assume you do.)
I don't believe in the draft anyway, but if I did, I'd say it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. The mother who stays at home to take care of the kids should be exempt, as should the single father, as should the *father* who stays at home with the kids while the mom works, or the aunt who's the primary caregiver while both parents are essentially out of the picture and just send checks. All these situations happen. Of course, the system won't let the sensible course prevail, I *know* that, but that's the *best* course.
Don't you think such schools should be allowed, at least if they're private schools, for those people who want that, and believe in that?
We're straying very far off-topic here. I'm interested in where this is going, but I suspect that it's just a little late to be having this discussion.
(And yes, I think they should be options. However, studies on this issue are divided, they don't unambiguously point in one direction or another.)
Would you really feel comfortable walking around on a beach with no top on?
I'm a D cup, and I hate the feeling of skin on skin. I am so *physically* uncomfortable with my breasts touching my chest (as well as my legs touching each other, or my bare arms being crossed) that I really can't judge how *psychologically* uncomfortable I'd be. However, if you're curious, various people in the world have seen my breast in a nonsexual manner. This includes my brother-in-law, my sometimes-foster sister, and quite probably her current boyfriend. This doesn't faze me much.
Don't you think you'd attract extra stares if you did?
Depends on where I am, doesn't it? And it also depends on how many people do this. Were it legalized, it'd probably become more common, until there *were* no extra stares. At any rate, I don't especially care if people stare at me. Well. That's not true, I care if I notice, but I don't usually notice.
Is it really such a difficult stretch to consider that some women feel uncomfortable allowing their sons to view what they consider to be nudity?
No doubt. Some people also feel uncomfortable around half-naked guys (that's topless) and watching women breastfeeding. This doesn't mean that society gives their opinions much merit - after all, if they don't like it, they don't have to be there.
The concept of outlawing discrination can be taken too far.
You're starting to head down that slippery slope. You're too smart for this, I'm not even tackling the comment.
Or should the American government have rather said, well, we don't have enough volunteers, we'll just have to sit around and watch millions of people being tortured and murdered?
You're now completely offtopic, but I'll answer it anyway. I will grudingly agree to the idea of a draft as a last ditch resort. To me, that means "when we ourselves are threatened".
Continued....
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 11:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 11:12 pm (UTC)I think it would be hypocritical for me to say "we should've stepped in during the second world war because of the holocaust, but not in Iraq because that's not our business". If it's not hypocritical, at the very least it puts me in the position of having to judge how much suffering is "enough" to merit our intervention, a tricky task. I have long felt that we shouldn't be intervening in this manner in the affairs of other countries. First off, it rarely seems to work, and second, it's a waste of money. We need to solve our problems here before we can justify spending money to solve other people's problems. Even if we could justify the money, it's rather obnoxious to pretend we have the answers to problems we haven't even solved over here. This may be a selfish line of reasoning (look to your own first), but it's always seemed to me to be the best one.
Yes, that's an astonishingly non-liberal attitude. I'm often shocked by my own convictions. Go figure.
And now I have rambled too much, and need sleep. If more than one word in three makes sense, I'm impressed.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 10:33 pm (UTC)(Speaking of real life - I've been curious for a while now - I know you go to Brooklyn college - what major are you going for? How close are you to completing your degree?)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-30 10:53 pm (UTC)