Would you want your daughter to? If the answer is no then I think you know how to vote.

Posted by orangeblobman:

It does insofar as we live in a complex society where interdependence is more accentuated than ever before. When a woman, or man, is walking down the street half naked, this represents, to me, a failure in morals and values of our society as a whole. In short, I ask, is nothing sacred anymore?

I am all for boobies and stuff, sure, but whatever happened to decency? Is that so crazy to say?

Even a man without a shirt on bothers you? We come into this world naked and for much of our deep ancestral history have not been concerned about covering every piece of skin. All the clothing stuff you see now is artificial in regards to human history and the that of other animals.

Decency is the eye of the beholder. However, if you took away the fact that breasts are a part of a womans body used to stimulate sexuality, then I'd say it's fine to let them be exposed. However, the fact in the matter is that they ARE a sexual stimulate. It turns on most men just to look at them and it turns on women to have them touched (By the right guy of course) and it turns some women on if guys are just looking at them.

Therefore, it's best to keep things the way they are.

Nothing sinful about breasts though. I don't know why so many religious extremists say they are. It turns people on, but getting turned on does not equate to pre maritial sex!!!

Posted by Allanfan20:

Decency is the eye of the beholder. However, if you took away the fact that breasts are a part of a womans body used to stimulate sexuality, then I'd say it's fine to let them be exposed. However, the fact in the matter is that they ARE a sexual stimulate. It turns on most men just to look at them and it turns on women to have them touched (By the right guy of course) and it turns some women on if guys are just looking at them.

Therefore, it's best to keep things the way they are.

Nothing sinful about breasts though. I don't know why so many religious extremists say they are. It turns people on, but getting turned on does not equate to pre maritial sex!!!

A man with a buff chest won't turn on anyone? Some people find woman's legs erotic should that also be covered up? And why should woman submit to special rules simply because a man might get turned on by it? A bit unfair don't you think.

Posted by orangeblobman:

Well that's a different thing entirely. Topless beaches, sure. Yes, without a doubt. But I misunderstood, sorry, I thought you meant in public in general. Like the movies and whatnot.

I referenced gender equality and as such meant that women could go topless anywhere a man could.

No one said about making anything illegal. You can't force someone to behave a certain way. But the fact remains that, in some ways, walking around in revealing clothing, for example, takes the focus away from the intellect and puts it on the physical.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being healthy and fit, but since the mind is the hallmark, the thing that separates man and beast, anything that goes against this is, or should be, considered regression.

Posted by orangeblobman:

No one said about making anything illegal. You can't force someone to behave a certain way. But the fact remains that, in some ways, walking around in revealing clothing, for example, takes the focus away from the intellect and puts it on the physical.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being healthy and fit, but since the mind is the hallmark, the thing that separates man and beast, anything that goes against this is, or should be, considered regression.

Why is it necessary to do everything we can to make sure we separate ourselves from other animals? I have a great love and appreciation for nature and animals and would rather be more like than unlike them.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Allanfan20:

Decency is the eye of the beholder. However, if you took away the fact that breasts are a part of a womans body used to stimulate sexuality, then I'd say it's fine to let them be exposed. However, the fact in the matter is that they ARE a sexual stimulate. It turns on most men just to look at them and it turns on women to have them touched (By the right guy of course) and it turns some women on if guys are just looking at them.

Therefore, it's best to keep things the way they are.

Nothing sinful about breasts though. I don't know why so many religious extremists say they are. It turns people on, but getting turned on does not equate to pre maritial sex!!!

A man with a buff chest won't turn on anyone? Some people find woman's legs erotic should that also be covered up? And why should woman submit to special rules simply because a man might get turned on by it? A bit unfair don't you think.

A man with a buff chest will turn lots of women on and a woman with nice legs will turn lots of men on (Including myself.) However, the breasts ARE sexual glands. Legs aren't and neither is a mans buff chest. Touching a womans breasts automatically stimulates sexuality and in THIS society, we cover the sexual glands up.

However, if you want to change society and be like certain other cultures and we just walk around completely naked, then I get your arguement. However, if you're going to allow women to walk around topless, then you might as well just tell people to walk around naked, in my humble opinion. That's b/c in a realistic perspective, the breast, vagina and penis are THE PRIME sexual stimulators. That is a fact. Much more so than a mans chest or a womans legs. And those are what we cover up and that's what most people feel comfortable covering up.

Perhaps I should have made myself a little more clear. Sorry.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No one said about making anything illegal. You can't force someone to behave a certain way. But the fact remains that, in some ways, walking around in revealing clothing, for example, takes the focus away from the intellect and puts it on the physical.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being healthy and fit, but since the mind is the hallmark, the thing that separates man and beast, anything that goes against this is, or should be, considered regression.

Why is it necessary to do everything we can to make sure we separate ourselves from other animals? I have a great love and appreciation for nature and animals and would rather be more like than unlike them.

Some people flip out over women breast feeding. I think if anything orangeblobman is making a case that men or more like animals then unlike them. This idea that humans in particular men are unable to control themselves if a woman's breasts are on displayed. I

I personally am not bothered by breast feeding in public. In fact, I promote it b/c it's MUCH healthier for your babies and their future health.

I also agree that we should try to reach out to our primitive spirits as well. People ARE nature, and unfortunately, we have used nature for the worse as well. That's a different discussion for a different thread though.