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.

[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.

[conuly]

*nods*

[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.

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

Also good. *writes a sticky note to hunt for an address later*

[conuly]

What, going topless? Or nudity?

[rho]

Just generally seeing people do things which wouldn't be considered "normal".

[conuly]

Okay.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I think that's partially true. Hidden things have far more interest than that which is fully revealed. But scanty clothing is far more alluring than nudity or rather covering clothing. Afterall, strip teases exist for a very good reason, rather than women just prancing around naked. As does sexy clothing for the bedroom, rather than people just being fully undressed. Things that tease are the most provocative. Fully nudity or toplessness isn't really tied to sex unless you make it be.

[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]

Not necessarily--look how many "leg men" are still around, despite the prevalence of the miniskirt for lo, these many years now.

[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....

[conuly]

In this case, I assume she's joking. "If men were really all like that, then the logical answer would be foo instead of bar".

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. I support this bill. Right now, however, I'm a bit iffy about exposing any skin, as it would be frostbit by the 40 degree weather. *shivers*

[conuly]

Not frostbitten, you'd just get hypothermia.

[targaff.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely convinced that argument follows the comment made - or maybe the irony is too subtle for me to detect (too much time on IRC, not enough smileys!) - but fair enough, I'll demur for the sake of not getting involved in what would probably be an unproductive argument.

[conuly]

Well, I'll wait for her to reply. If it's not a joke, I'm sure she'll tell us.

[farraige.livejournal.com]

The absolute majority of people own, or have access to, private grounds.
by "environmentally appropriate" I meant that stripping is best kept to appropriate locations such as specified above. not in urban streets, restaurants, shops or buses. ugh.
(in fact, some of the shopping malls here started enforcing it recently by displaying notices requesting that customers wear a shirt during their visit. however, the desire to bare all is very restricted socially.