Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Being topless in public
3110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

mhibicke wrote:


jtjumper wrote:
Requiring underwear or pasties is not any more restrictive than having to wear a seat belt. Not too difficult.


Sorry for not including this in my earlier quote, but how often do you wear pasties? Hopefully as often as you wear your seat belt, or you wouldn't be speaking from a position of authority, would you?


By restrictive, I mean it doesn't take to long to put on. Furthermore, I used to cover my hands in tape, wasn't too restrictive and since breasts don't require dexterity, I can't imagine pasties would be too restrictive. Additionally, unless my understanding of pasties is completely misguided, I don't imagine they are as frequently removed as seat belts are.
Also, if a woman does not want to wear pasties, she can wear a shirt, bra, or other boob covering textile.
32582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

jtjumper wrote:


mhibicke wrote:


jtjumper wrote:
Requiring underwear or pasties is not any more restrictive than having to wear a seat belt. Not too difficult.


Sorry for not including this in my earlier quote, but how often do you wear pasties? Hopefully as often as you wear your seat belt, or you wouldn't be speaking from a position of authority, would you?


By restrictive, I mean it doesn't take to long to put on. Furthermore, I used to cover my hands in tape, wasn't too restrictive and since breasts don't require dexterity, I can't imagine pasties would be too restrictive. Additionally, unless my understanding of pasties is completely misguided, I don't imagine they are as frequently removed as seat belts are.
Also, if a woman does not want to wear pasties, she can wear a shirt, bra, or other boob covering textile.


You're using them wrong..................


On a side note I think I may send Rep. Brown (R) a nice pic of my hairy man boobs in protest.
3110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

mhibicke wrote:


jtjumper wrote:

Then she shouldn't pole dance!

That is totally not your decision to make. To butcher a quote, if she's not f*cking you, it's none of your business.

This is America, where we have the freedom of expression. Which, by the way, is also what protects your religious ideals. If you want to live in a fundamentalist nation that doesn't allow freedom of expression, move to Iran.

As for me, I think the first I'd Really Rather You Didn't sums it up pretty well.

1. I’d Really Rather You Didn’t Act Like A Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass...
(for more on this you can refer to The Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts)
http://fsm-consortium.com/more-info-on-the-cofsm/the-eight-id-really-rather-you-didnts/


I have every right to say it's a bad idea.
I am not seeking the ban of all things that offend me, I just don't like public boobs and pole dancing.
Is that a crime?

Read the tenth Amendment! This is about a state law, not a federal law.

This is America, where we can and do regulate and restrict what kind of professions people may have.

Does my distaste for pole-dancing really count as 'Holier Than Thou' or isn't it really just being opinionated?
22723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 2/21/13


If you don't like pole dancers getting their nipples out, then don't go into those clubs. Since they all operate on private property, behind closed doors, and require both an ID and a cover charge to enter, then the right to privacy inside the club is protected by the fourth amendment, while the freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment. As such, the tenth amendment does not apply, as these rights are federally protected, and don't default into the jurisdiction of states' rights.

And yes, your distaste for pole dancing counts as holier than though sanctimonious assery. If you don't like it, fine - you don't have to hang out at strip clubs. It's not like pole dancers are trying to tell you what you can and can't do at church. While you may feel very self-righteous and superior, you should be aware that your lifestyle choices do not meet universal approval. I, for one, strongly disapprove. But as much as I would like to ban public displays of behaviors of which I disapprove (including crying, straight PDA, religious fervor, and anything that begins with an "I feel" statement), it is unreasonable.

You look after yourself, I'll look after myself, and the strippers can look after their stripper selves. In other word, we should all just mind our own damn business - live and let live. My freedoms are as important to me as your freedoms are to you, and I really don't care what you do with yours as long as you don't tell me what I should be doing with mine.

"Nobody's free until everybody's free" - Fannie Lou Hamer

Sorry if I'm only half intelligible. I've been wrapped up in a work crunch and am exhausted.
10133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Las Vegas
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

mhibicke wrote:



If you don't like pole dancers getting their nipples out, then don't go into those clubs. Since they all operate on private property, behind closed doors, and require both an ID and a cover charge to enter, then the right to privacy inside the club is protected by the fourth amendment, while the freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment. As such, the tenth amendment does not apply, as these rights are federally protected, and don't default into the jurisdiction of states' rights.

And yes, your distaste for pole dancing counts as holier than though sanctimonious assery. If you don't like it, fine - you don't have to hang out at strip clubs. It's not like pole dancers are trying to tell you what you can and can't do at church. While you may feel very self-righteous and superior, you should be aware that your lifestyle choices do not meet universal approval. I, for one, strongly disapprove. But as much as I would like to ban public displays of behaviors of which I disapprove (including crying, straight PDA, religious fervor, and anything that begins with an "I feel" statement), it is unreasonable.

You look after yourself, I'll look after myself, and the strippers can look after their stripper selves. In other word, we should all just mind our own damn business - live and let live. My freedoms are as important to me as your freedoms are to you, and I really don't care what you do with yours as long as you don't tell me what I should be doing with mine.

"Nobody's free until everybody's free" - Fannie Lou Hamer

Sorry if I'm only half intelligible. I've been wrapped up in a work crunch and am exhausted.


All I gotta say is... Yeah, I love dem strippers


3110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

mhibicke wrote:



If you don't like pole dancers getting their nipples out, then don't go into those clubs. Since they all operate on private property, behind closed doors, and require both an ID and a cover charge to enter, then the right to privacy inside the club is protected by the fourth amendment, while the freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment. As such, the tenth amendment does not apply, as these rights are federally protected, and don't default into the jurisdiction of states' rights.

And yes, your distaste for pole dancing counts as holier than though sanctimonious assery. If you don't like it, fine - you don't have to hang out at strip clubs. It's not like pole dancers are trying to tell you what you can and can't do at church. While you may feel very self-righteous and superior, you should be aware that your lifestyle choices do not meet universal approval. I, for one, strongly disapprove. But as much as I would like to ban public displays of behaviors of which I disapprove (including crying, straight PDA, religious fervor, and anything that begins with an "I feel" statement), it is unreasonable.

You look after yourself, I'll look after myself, and the strippers can look after their stripper selves. In other word, we should all just mind our own damn business - live and let live. My freedoms are as important to me as your freedoms are to you, and I really don't care what you do with yours as long as you don't tell me what I should be doing with mine.

"Nobody's free until everybody's free" - Fannie Lou Hamer

Sorry if I'm only half intelligible. I've been wrapped up in a work crunch and am exhausted.


My goodness, that was a rhetorical question.
First off, federalism is an important issue here.
States can pass indecent exposure laws. Bottom line.
So saying 'I think pole-dancing is bad' in thread about whether public toplessness should be allowed is somehow sanctimonious?
Well, God-forbid we have people expressing opinions in a debate thread.
Listen, we all have opinions. This thread is about opinions and debate.
This issue happens to intersect with the whole ethics / morals / social mores area. That means this debate will end up talking about what people should and should not do. Calling people names does not make a good argument only results in insulting parties to the debate.
If you feel your calling me a sanctimonious jackass forwards the argument and the diverse spectrum of opinions as to whether laws should ban public woman nipples, then by all means call me one.
When I said, "Then she shouldn't pole-dance," it was a counter-argument to saying 'women should be allowed to be topless because pasties hurt on pole dancers,' which itself was an argument for kept toplessness legal.
I feel that saying that I'm a sanctimonious jackass is not a very effective argument.
That said I would kindly ask you to follow rule 5 of the forum.
3110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/21/13 , edited 2/21/13

The chest muscles are too limited!

As a side note, you do realize Rep. Brown is a woman, right?
14774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17
Offline
Posted 2/21/13

jtjumper wrote:


MountainMew wrote:



Just because society says it's improper doesn't make it improper; society is ever changing, and just because it currently claims something to be "improper" doesn't mean we have to force others to do as they say, especially when what they say is neither truly improper nor hurting anyone.
Also, nudity doesn't devalue sex or desecrate sexuality, I don't know why so many people think this. It's not even a good defense against nudist.


It's not because society says it's improper, it's because society says it's sexual.
It's not about nudity, it's about public nudity. In some African cultures, breasts are not sexualized, but ankles are. In those cultures, it would be perfectly reasonable to require people to wear shoes in public. That's what this law is about. What takes place in public. Public nudity of sexualized components does devalue sex and sexuality because it removes the intimacy and relational factor, and desecrates it because it does this in public.


"sexual" and "improper" are practically one in the same in societies eyes, it really doesn't change my stand point.
So what if they're sexualized? It's still not harming anyone or thing, telling someone they have to wear a shirt because society sexualizes it is absolutely disgusting, as is telling someone they must wear shoes for ankles are sexualized. People should be welcome to freedom, and make decisions on what they want to do on their own, not have society and what it claims to be "sexualized" dictate their lives.
It does not remove intimacy, nor the "relational factor". There's so much more to love and lust than seeing someone naked. Not to mention public nudity does not mean everyone just starts having sex all the time in public, which is what you seem to be implying. Again, even if it did mean that, public sex doesn't really desecrate sexuality either. Heck there's the possibility of someone finding public sex even more intimate than otherwise. Actually, sex doesn't even really have to be intimate either. So taking out the intimacy doesn't devalue sex for some, anyway.
Really, I don't think anything truly devalues sex as a whole; it simply devalues sex for an individual.
32582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

jtjumper wrote:


The chest muscles are too limited!

As a side note, you do realize Rep. Brown is a woman, right?


I thought we were talking about the jiggly bits, not the muscles!?! And yes, I do realise that. I don't think said protest would be nearly as effective were she a male.
3110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/22/13

MountainMew wrote:


jtjumper wrote:


MountainMew wrote:



Just because society says it's improper doesn't make it improper; society is ever changing, and just because it currently claims something to be "improper" doesn't mean we have to force others to do as they say, especially when what they say is neither truly improper nor hurting anyone.
Also, nudity doesn't devalue sex or desecrate sexuality, I don't know why so many people think this. It's not even a good defense against nudist.


It's not because society says it's improper, it's because society says it's sexual.
It's not about nudity, it's about public nudity. In some African cultures, breasts are not sexualized, but ankles are. In those cultures, it would be perfectly reasonable to require people to wear shoes in public. That's what this law is about. What takes place in public. Public nudity of sexualized components does devalue sex and sexuality because it removes the intimacy and relational factor, and desecrates it because it does this in public.


"sexual" and "improper" are practically one in the same in societies eyes, it really doesn't change my stand point.
So what if they're sexualized? It's still not harming anyone or thing, telling someone they have to wear a shirt because society sexualizes it is absolutely disgusting, as is telling someone they must wear shoes for ankles are sexualized. People should be welcome to freedom, and make decisions on what they want to do on their own, not have society and what it claims to be "sexualized" dictate their lives.
It does not remove intimacy, nor the "relational factor". There's so much more to love and lust than seeing someone naked. Not to mention public nudity does not mean everyone just starts having sex all the time in public, which is what you seem to be implying. Again, even if it did mean that, public sex doesn't really desecrate sexuality either. Heck there's the possibility of someone finding public sex even more intimate than otherwise. Actually, sex doesn't even really have to be intimate either. So taking out the intimacy doesn't devalue sex for some, anyway.
Really, I don't think anything truly devalues sex as a whole; it simply devalues sex for an individual.


"Sexual" is not improper, "Sexual and public" is. (Except in California. lol) Big difference.
It is not disgusting to stop someone's immodesty from affecting other people's lives. What is disgusting is people's immodesty affecting other people's lives.
Toplessness wouldn't mean anything anything if it weren't sexualized in our culture, but it is and thus does affect others lives, at least for North Carolina. That's what this debate is about. It's not about what's right for Michigan (where peeing in public gets you on the sex offenders list), California (where public nudity is generally accepted), or Montana( who knows). It's about the culture of North Carolina and how it views toplessness.
I hold no such implication that public nudity means everyone starts having an orgy. However, in any culture, sexualized parts serve as sexual expression when exposed publicly. Tell me it's disgusting to stop a guy who flashes children.
As for sex in public, yeah it does shatter intimacy and desecrate sex. Guess we'll just have to disagree on that.
3110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/22/13


Indeed, we are.
Posted 2/22/13
no, it is degrading
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.