This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Women strip for 'Go Topless Day'
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the legal matter, myself.
On the one hand, my personal code of morality tells me that we shouldn't legislate against things unless its to protect other people. People who get offended should toughen up, rather than attacking another person's behavior through the law.
On the other hand, when faced with things like the Westboro Baptist Church, it's clear to me that in some instances, offending people
can
hurt them. In a totally free society (besides laws instituted to protect people) the WBC would be legally allowed to verbally attack people who were grieving their dead children, and I don't think that's right.
In the end, I don't think offending someone's sensibilities counts as harming them. Unless someone is obviously being indecent towards another person (e.g. behaving in a deliberately
sexual
way towards another person, as opposed to simply exposing their bodies), I don't think nudity should be a crime.
I imagine someone will reply that exposing ones body in our culture
is
sexual, so I answer that it's only sexual because we've been trained to see it as such, and I think that we can be untrained.
That's not to say that I necessarily think the human race should
lose
clothing, just that it seems a shame to me that a person can be labelled a sex criminal by simply exposing their body.
Post by
Adamsm
I'm honestly not sure how an indecent exposure charge can get trumped up into a charge for sexual predator....as I'm not sure how a woman who walks around without a shirt and a bra just in a normal day is 'out hunting' and all.
Ah, I see what you mean now. In that case, that's not an issue with the indecent exposure laws.Combination of the law and the states that enforce it into something far worse. I don't know, I may be a little spoiled because of where I am, but when I actually read that women who stood up against the laws could end up being charged far beyond what they actually did, just made me incredibly glad I'm in the country I live in.
Post by
Squishalot
Again, the idea of being labelled a sex criminal for flashing isn't an issue with the level at which indecent exposure laws are enforced, it's an issue with the sexual assault laws.
(sorry, aimed at Skreeran)
In the end, I don't think offending someone's sensibilities counts as harming them.
Isn't what the WBC were doing offending their sensibilities? Going to a soldier's funeral with placards saying "YOUR SON MURDERED INNOCENT CIVILIANS" only offends sensibilities, technically speaking.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
I imagine someone will reply that exposing ones body in our culture
is
sexual, so I answer that it's only sexual because we've been trained to see it as such, and I think that we can be untrained.
However
should
we be untrained? I'm quite attracted to women's breasts. I don't want that untrained from me =P
Post by
Adamsm
I imagine someone will reply that exposing ones body in our culture
is
sexual, so I answer that it's only sexual because we've been trained to see it as such, and I think that we can be untrained.
However
should
we be untrained? I'm quite attracted to women's breasts. I don't want that untrained from me =P
I think Skree was referring to getting the nudity taboo untrained out of us.
Post by
Jubilee
I imagine someone will reply that exposing ones body in our culture
is
sexual, so I answer that it's only sexual because we've been trained to see it as such, and I think that we can be untrained.
However
should
we be untrained? I'm quite attracted to women's breasts. I don't want that untrained from me =P
I think Skree was referring to getting the nudity taboo untrained out of us.
He said sexual twice in that sentence. I'm pretty sure I'm not reading it wrong.
Post by
Adamsm
Eh, you could still see boobs as nice and attractive, even if they are exposed often; wouldn't be any different then seeing a nice pair of legs or the like.
Post by
Atik
I don't see where breasts became considered sexual organs... kind of wierd they are paired with the vagina as such...
Post by
Squishalot
As with the vagina, they're considered a physical necessity for raising a newborn.
Post by
Jubilee
Eh, you could still see boobs as nice and attractive, even if they are exposed often; wouldn't be any different then seeing a nice pair of legs or the like.
I don't associate legs with sex on any level. Legs can be good looking and nice but I've never seems them a something sexual. The blood doesn't start pumping and I don't feel warm and cozy when I see legs. I don't see anything wrong with women's breasts doing that, and now that it's part of me I don't just want to unlearn it. I merely don't understand why Skreeran thinks that we should unlearn it, if that's what he thinks.
Post by
Atik
As with the vagina, they're considered a physical necessity for raising a newborn.
1. How is a vagina needed for raising a newborn? Concieving and birthing yes, but not raising.
2. What is sexual about raising a newborn?
Post by
Adamsm
As with the vagina, they're considered a physical necessity for raising a newborn.
That, and they have one hell of a pleasure center to them heh.
Eh, you could still see boobs as nice and attractive, even if they are exposed often; wouldn't be any different then seeing a nice pair of legs or the like.
I don't associate legs with sex on any level. Legs can be good looking and nice but I've never seems them a something sexual. The blood doesn't start pumping and I don't feel warm and cozy when I see legs. I don't see anything wrong with women's breasts doing that, and now that it's part of me I don't just want to unlearn it. I merely don't understand why Skreeran thinks that we should unlearn it, if that's what he thinks.
The legs were merely an example; some people use asses, others use abs, etc etc etc etc etc. And I still don't think Skree means what you think he means there.
2. What is sexual about raising a newborn?There's a fetish for that.
Main, off topic is just going off the rails lately ain't it?
Post by
Squishalot
As with the vagina, they're considered a physical necessity for raising a newborn.
1. How is a vagina needed for raising a newborn? Concieving and birthing yes, but not raising.
2. What is sexual about raising a newborn?
... because you can't raise a newborn if it doesn't exist?
That being said, that's more a taboo thing. The actual sexuality arises from the fact that people derive sexual pleasure from playing with breasts.
The legs were merely an example; some people use asses, others use abs, etc etc etc etc etc. And I still don't think Skree means what you think he means there.
On the contrary, I think that's exactly what he means - to untrain people from thinking that breasts = sexual.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
Sadly, he's away again, so we'll have to wait till he shows back up again to find out for sure.
Also, in regards to that, as I said earlier there is a woman who jogs topless in our town; I've seen her go by so many times, it doesn't really register anymore. That said, seeing my girlfriend in a very hot/sexy outfit, definitely get's my motor running. So yes, if he does refer to that, just because it does becomes that we see a naked person and don't see them as a 'sexual' object, wouldn't mean that your own view of something would disappear.
Post by
Jubilee
I see my own breasts more than you see your jogger's =P Merely seeing something repeatedly does not deprogram you. From what I understand, Skreeran wants to get rid of the underlying sexual attraction we (men and most lesbian women I guess) have towards breasts.
Post by
Squishalot
Also, in regards to that, as I said earlier there is a woman who jogs topless in our town; I've seen her go by so many times, it doesn't really register anymore. That said, seeing my girlfriend in a very hot/sexy outfit, definitely get's my motor running. So yes, if he does refer to that, just because it does becomes that we see a naked person and don't see them as a 'sexual' object, wouldn't mean that your own view of something would disappear.
You know, people have criticised pornography of the exact same thing (causing young men to think of the female body as simply existing and not generating a turn-on), and suggest that it's a bad thing to 'untrain' people's minds like that.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
Again, the idea of being labelled a sex criminal for flashing isn't an issue with the level at which indecent exposure laws are enforced, it's an issue with the sexual assault laws.
(sorry, aimed at Skreeran)I'd agree with you there. I'd be less opposed to legislation if it weren't so ham-handed.
In the end, I don't think offending someone's sensibilities counts as harming them.
Isn't what the WBC were doing offending their sensibilities? Going to a soldier's funeral with placards saying "YOUR SON MURDERED INNOCENT CIVILIANS" only offends sensibilities, technically speaking.As I mentioned in my previous post, there is a point where it goes beyond just offending sensibilities and into actually causing pain.
Yelling at a mother that her son is going to hell at his own funeral isn't just offending her sensibilities, it's actually causing her additional pain, and that's why I'd support legislation against it, as opposed to legislation against truck nuts. One causes pain, the other makes people go "Well, I NEVER!"
I imagine someone will reply that exposing ones body in our culture
is
sexual, so I answer that it's only sexual because we've been trained to see it as such, and I think that we can be untrained.
However
should
we be untrained? I'm quite attracted to women's breasts. I don't want that untrained from me =PI can't say whether we
should
. I'm merely saying that associating nudity with sex is a learned concept, not a natural one. Many other cultures have people walking around naked or all-but, everyday, and they don't go "Damn, that girl has a nice rack!" anymore than we go "Do you see the ankles on that one?"
As I stated, I'm not hoping for a future where everyone walks around naked. I'm just saying that I even assuming breasts are a sexual organ, I don't think there's anything inherently sexual about exposing ones sexual organs. The whole reason people immediately associate the sight of sexual organs with sex, is because they're only allowed to be seen in a sexual context. If people were only allowed to expose their mouths when they were giving oral sex, we'd get sprung if we saw someone walking around with an uncovered mouth, too.
Post by
Jubilee
As I stated, I'm not hoping for a future where everyone walks around naked. I'm just saying that I even assuming breasts are a sexual organ, I don't think there's anything inherently sexual about exposing ones sexual organs. The whole reason people immediately associate the sight of sexual organs with sex, is because they're only allowed to be seen in a sexual context. If people were only allowed to expose their mouths when they were giving oral sex, we'd get sprung if we saw someone walking around with an uncovered mouth, too.
I wonder how you would explain gay and lesbian attraction? I was raised to be attracted to men. All my friends were, and I was too, as much as a little girl really is sexually attracted to anybody. But eventually I realized that this "training" if you want to call it that was not exactly what I was feeling, and eventually that culminated it me realizing that I'm gay, discovering that once I sorted through all the emotional wreckage that I was attracted to women and consequently women parts. It seems that my attractions were completely contrary to the cultural mindset that was initially imposed on me.
Post by
Adamsm
I see my own breasts more than you see your jogger's =P Merely seeing something repeatedly does not deprogram you. From what I understand, Skreeran wants to get rid of the underlying sexual attraction we (men and most lesbian women I guess) have towards breasts.That wasn't the point of my post; the point was seeing her going around like that has made it that I don't notice it anymore, because it's a part of the scenery at this point. And as Skree clarified his views there, told you it was more about the nudity taboo then actually taking away sexual attraction to certain parts of the body.
You know, people have criticised pornography of the exact same thing (causing young men to think of the female body as simply existing and not generating a turn-on), and suggest that it's a bad thing to 'untrain' people's minds like that.
Eh, porn is porn though; nothing but acting. It's more the roboticness of what you see that kills any desire....well for most people heh.
Chances are that if we tried to unlearn in this case having breasts being sexualized it wouldn't happen, 2 or 3 generations down the road however they may end up being seen just like a nice pair of legs or lips are seen.
Which was the point of my example there; merely one more feature that adds to what makes people attracted to others.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.