It’s ridiculous because people are not equal. The idea has been parodied many times in fiction. I am not equal to you. Group X is not “equal” to Group Y (even if you separate them at random, this remains true … statistics is weird like that). The two genders are not in any sense “equal”.
It might be true that nudity laws are arbitrary. There are plenty of cultures all over the globe who probably don’t grok the way other cultures obsess about covering nipples (or dangly ballsacks). But I think you’ll find all of them still appreciate a basic and fundamental difference between male and female nipples, even if they don’t find that difference worthy of different modes of clothing.
If we’re coming to a consensus that women should be able to walk around completely braless and shirtless, if that’s really what you’re trying to argue. I’m down. Write my name on that support list. It’s just not normal in modern society, same reason I can’t let my dangly balls out in public. There’s many tribal societies where it’s fully acceptable though.
Edit – For the record, where I lived for the past 4+ years, men had to cover up too. But I can still see why it would be acceptable for men to go shirtless, but women would have to cover the breasts/nipples. I stand by my original statement completely.
Also I want to tackle this one.
Why did you take that completely out of context? I find it ridiculous that people are trying to argue our anatomy is the same. It’s not, our bodies work differently. That’s a ludicrous argument and has little to do with true social and economic equality. Some topics using the pseudo cover of “equality” to shroud their lunacy are ridiculous. Think of how many people can legally do something you can’t, doesn’t make it not equal.
I rushed excitedly to check out the non-censored version of that photo, but when I saw it my excitement deflated almost as much as Amber’s derriere. That flat-as-a-pancake posterior is nothing to show off.
Yes the breasts are different. The nipples look pretty much the same. So we can expose breasts, but not the nipples? Would this swimsuit fly? The model is essentially flat-chested but you can see man-nipples
It is summer. I see way too many naked men nipples, more than I want to. No chest hair to cover! Big beer belly! Blinding reflective white skin!
See what I did there?
In the ol country, when I was young, it was OK to pull out one breast and feed your kid in public. Alas, as we got more US influence, so did the puritanism. Now it is also illegal to breastfeed in malls, heaven forbid at a bus stop, or on a bus. I could go on and on about the sexualization of female breasts, or rather, the commercialization. But as said, it is moot.
At least here in Taiwan you sort of can walk around in culifaldas -skirts that barely cover your buttocks- and not be harrassed. Ther eis of course th eocassional pervert, but so far so good. Cleavage does get more stares, but then I’d blame commercialization. As long as we do not have 15 year olds getting implants I’m cool.
Recently I got on the MRT and there was a woman breastfeeding her baby -almost a toddler, maybe one year old- right there, during rush hour. It was treated with absolute discreetion, meaning no glances, stares, no panic calls to customer service. All was quiet in the realm.
As to the half naked lady, art is art. Her point is that there are many things to look at and people get distracted with appearances. She is a performance artist and her aim is to shock. As to the other totally naked lady, she is enjoying nature in a natural setting in her natural estate. I’d do the same if I was not afraid of anemone or other creatures too close to my valuables.
Staring is of course simply bad, but so far as men not quite knowing where to look, you can partly blame that on lack of practice. I’m very good at ignoring (or pretending to ignore) my university students who are wearing skirts and shorts like the ones you mention. But when there’s much cleavage, it takes an annoying amount of focus to keep my eyes directed where they should be. It’s just one of those skills, like driving a car, that becomes rusty for me after long stretches in Taiwan. (And, in case it’s necessary to add, is entirely on me, and women can and should be able to wear - or not wear - whatever they please.)
Well observed Chris. I didn’t noticed that.
And you? Still living in Taiwan? How long have you been living in Taiwan? How do you like it?
Regards,
Kevin
Well I happen to think lady nipples are not to be exposed in case we men get any ideas ! LIke uncontrolled urge to suckle on those slight_smile:
And i guess big man boobs should be covered up. Not because of the urge to suckle but they are simply gross …
[quote=“finley, post:41, topic:4374, full:true”]
It’s ridiculous because people are not equal.[/quote]
I hold the equality of all human beings to be a self-evident truth, and the foundational axiom upon which free societies and just governments are built.
Well, you’d be wrong, mainly because you’re quoting (paraphrasing) out of context. It’s pretty obvious what the Founding Fathers meant from the rest of the document: that no man is born (“created”) a slave or a king, and that the State should treat people equitably … as far as possible. Not that people are, literally, equal.
To give one example where the State rejects absolute equality under the law: rape legislation in most civilized countries gives women the benefit of the doubt. The reason is that it’s considered less socially damaging to skew the error towards imprisoning innocent men than it would be to let rapists out on the loose.
Or do you sincerely believe that I, for example, am “equal” to you? In other words, I’m completely interchangeable with you? The I have the same height and weight, the same intelligence, same manual dexterity, same wants and needs, same goals in life? If you don’t, then clearly people are not all “equal”.
People get irritated when the word “equality” gets bandied around because it’s basically meaningless. We do get what you mean, in the same way we get what the Constitution means, but it’s still a lazy way to express what you’re trying to say.
My exposure is irrelevant to your inability to control yourself. Yours is a personal problem that has nothing to do with women’s appearances. You may have been kidding, but the attitude perpetuates misogyny.
You’re wasting words and muddying the waters, finley. When people talk about the convention of equality, they don’t mean that it implies exact biological equality in all respects. To refer to men and women as exactly equal in all respects would indeed be ridiculous. When someone calls the convention ridiculous, however, I find that deserving of notice.
I know they don’t. My point was that you were deploying the word “equality” to justify a point of view that did, in fact, depend on assumption of exact biological equality. You can’t have it both ways.
slight_smile: