Topless Women Bare their Bare Breasts on Topless GoToplessDay founded apparently by religious weirdos

[dismal]

Thus I am entitled to air out my scrotum in public.

If you can pull out your dick then I think I am entitled to show my ass crack.

Non sequitur.

Plus, I said scrotum. Only a perv would pull out their dick in public.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I'm going to call your bluff by the fact that I think you ought be afforded that right to be fully naked. Many societies work perfectly well without such Victorian prudishness as our culture clings to.

The requirement imposed by what is in reality a nanny-state in this context is arbitrary and absurd.

I agree what some consider a naughty bit may seem somewhat arbitrary to those who would disagree, and that one can have a logically consistent position that the state should just stay out the business of labeling certain body parts "naughty bits" and banning their display. Another logically consistent position might be that in spite of the fact that some consider it arbitrary, there is a fair amount of consensus about what these naughty bits are and our legislative process has captured that consensus.

The argument that seems silly is where someone tries to argue it's OK to outlaw the display naughty bit X, but outlawing naughty bit Y violates someone's Constitutional rights.

Excepting that you still have to justify that it is naughty in the first place, or that naughtiness is even a real thing in this context. The belief that a thing is harmful does not itself make a thing harmful, even if a person harms themselves in order to support their belief, when exposed to it. It is not the fault of the man who goes naked that someone hits themselves in the face with a Bible on seeing it. It is the fault of the man who hit himself. It is not a person's fault when someone else imprisons him for being naked that a he was imprisoned. The result of imprisonment could have been wholely avoided had the person who imprisoned him just not done it.

There is no logically consistent position that removes the arbitrariness given the context. So let's just do away with Victorian laws.

I am calling your bluff. I advocate for legal nudity, insofar as it does not provide a public hazard. Let people's own prudence be the arbiter of whether they wear clothes and how.

 

[dismal]

I agree what some consider a naughty bit may seem somewhat arbitrary to those who would disagree, and that one can have a logically consistent position that the state should just stay out the business of labeling certain body parts "naughty bits" and banning their display. Another logically consistent position might be that in spite of the fact that some consider it arbitrary, there is a fair amount of consensus about what these naughty bits are and our legislative process has captured that consensus.

The argument that seems silly is where someone tries to argue it's OK to outlaw the display naughty bit X, but outlawing naughty bit Y violates someone's Constitutional rights.

Excepting that you still have to justify that it is naughty in the first place, or that naughtiness is even a real thing in this context.

Somehow you have become confused. I have never claimed to be the decider. Our democracy is the decider.

Our democracy has deemed certain things to be naughty bits. The collective will of the people.

In most places, they seem to have decided the following bits are naughty and mustn't be publicly displayed: Male scrotums, buttholes and penises. Female vaginas, buttholes and nipples. There may be some places that have a different list.

There is no logically consistent position that removes the arbitrariness given the context.

Tis the power of the people what decides.

So let's just do away with Victorian laws.

I think these are current day laws. We can do away with them by passing new laws. But I'm not sure the people want to.

I am calling your bluff. I advocate for legal nudity, insofar as it does not provide a public hazard. Let people's own prudence be the arbiter of whether they wear clothes and how.

Bluff? Is that a slang name for my scrotum? Not familiar with that one.

 

[Jarhyn]

Excepting that you still have to justify that it is naughty in the first place, or that naughtiness is even a real thing in this context.

Somehow you have become confused. I have never claimed to be the decider. Our democracy is the decider.

Our democracy has deemed certain things to be naughty bits. The collective will of the people.

In most places, they seem to have decided the following bits are naughty and mustn't be publicly displayed: Male scrotums, buttholes and penises. Female vaginas, buttholes and nipples. There may be some places that have a different list.

There is no logically consistent position that removes the arbitrariness given the context.

Tis the power of the people what decides.

So let's just do away with Victorian laws.

I think these are current day laws. We can do away with them by passing new laws. But I'm not sure the people want to.

I am calling your bluff. I advocate for legal nudity, insofar as it does not provide a public hazard. Let people's own prudence be the arbiter of whether they wear clothes and how.

Bluff? Is that a slang name for my scrotum? Not familiar with that one.

Democracy is not the final arbiter of what is right. See: slavery.

 

[dismal]

Democracy is not the final arbiter of what is right. See: slavery.

Agreed, but it generally makes the laws.

 

[Jarhyn]

Democracy is not the final arbiter of what is right. See: slavery.

Agreed, but it generally makes the laws.

No, democracy does not make the laws, or at least it never has in this country, save at great effort and in spite of our system of government.

People write laws, and in the best of worlds, laws would be written only as they coincide with known and achievable best practices of society and so it could be said that in the best of worlds that it is NATURE which writes the laws and we would merely put them down on paper. There is some questions of risk probability that may be decidable by democracy, but that's about it.

As to our current society, powerful individuals write laws and vote on them. We have little or no power to decide who those people are and little or no power to decide on the laws they write.

It stands that some things nobody ought have any right to decide for another, one being whether an activity that has no reasonable expectation to cause harm except the harm that the 'victim' incurs on themselves ought be allowed. Such is the case with public nudity.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I agree what some consider a naughty bit may seem somewhat arbitrary to those who would disagree, and that one can have a logically consistent position that the state should just stay out the business of labeling certain body parts "naughty bits" and banning their display. Another logically consistent position might be that in spite of the fact that some consider it arbitrary, there is a fair amount of consensus about what these naughty bits are and our legislative process has captured that consensus.

The argument that seems silly is where someone tries to argue it's OK to outlaw the display naughty bit X, but outlawing naughty bit Y violates someone's Constitutional rights.

But you're going from "logically consistent position" to "argument that seems silly". If you're saying that the "argument that seems silly" is logically inconsistent, please clarify.
Else, I'm not sure what your point about logical consistency is. Could you clarify, please?

By the way, when you say that there is a fair amount of consensus, are you talking about consensus in America, or generally consensus among humans, across societies?

 

[dismal]

I agree what some consider a naughty bit may seem somewhat arbitrary to those who would disagree, and that one can have a logically consistent position that the state should just stay out the business of labeling certain body parts "naughty bits" and banning their display. Another logically consistent position might be that in spite of the fact that some consider it arbitrary, there is a fair amount of consensus about what these naughty bits are and our legislative process has captured that consensus.

The argument that seems silly is where someone tries to argue it's OK to outlaw the display naughty bit X, but outlawing naughty bit Y violates someone's Constitutional rights.

But you're going from "logically consistent position" to "argument that seems silly". If you're saying that the "argument that seems silly" is logically inconsistent, please clarify.
Else, I'm not sure what your point about logical consistency is. Could you clarify, please?

Hmm, I didn't think my statement was so complicated to interpret. I think Jahryn's view that defining somethings as "dirty bits" is inherently arbitrary, and therefore there should be no laws against displaying any body parts is defensible. The legal policy is consistent with the view of his original premise. Another view could be that members of society's, for whatever reason which may seem arbitrary to some, can and do have views that certain body parts are dirty, and are capable of expressing those views in the political process of said society. Again, the legal policy is consistent with the original premise.

Now, I think if you held the idea that the Constitution forbids the making of laws about public display of body parts -- maybe because the founders agreed with Jahryn -- it seems likely that whatever phrase you would point to to argue this view would not allow you to make laws banning the revealing of my scrotum but not some woman's nipples. Perhaps Jahryn's view can be tortured from the Constitution in some emanation emanating from some penumbra, but surely the Constitution lacks any detailed specific commentary on scrotums and nipples that would be required to support that sort of a legal policy.

By the way, when you say that there is a fair amount of consensus, are you talking about consensus in America, or generally consensus among humans, across societies?

The statements about making laws would apply to the consensus prevailing in the district where the laws are made. Of course any statement pertaining to the US Constitution would only be relevant in the US.

 

[Jarhyn]

But you're going from "logically consistent position" to "argument that seems silly". If you're saying that the "argument that seems silly" is logically inconsistent, please clarify.
Else, I'm not sure what your point about logical consistency is. Could you clarify, please?

Hmm, I didn't think my statement was so complicated to interpret. I think Jahryn's view that defining somethings as "dirty bits" is inherently arbitrary, and therefore there should be no laws against displaying any body parts is defensible. The legal policy is consistent with the view of his original premise. Another view could be that members of society's, for whatever reason which may seem arbitrary to some, can and do have views that certain body parts are dirty, and are capable of expressing those views in the political process of said society. Again, the legal policy is consistent with the original premise.

Now, I think if you held the idea that the Constitution forbids the making of laws about public display of body parts -- maybe because the founders agreed with Jahryn -- it seems likely that whatever phrase you would point to to argue this view would not allow you to make laws banning the revealing of my scrotum but not some woman's nipples. Perhaps Jahryn's view can be tortured from the Constitution in some emanation emanating from some penumbra, but surely the Constitution lacks any detailed specific commentary on scrotums and nipples that would be required to support that sort of a legal policy.

By the way, when you say that there is a fair amount of consensus, are you talking about consensus in America, or generally consensus among humans, across societies?

The statements about making laws would apply to the consensus prevailing in the district where the laws are made. Of course any statement pertaining to the US Constitution would only be relevant in the US.

You're funny. I've told you consistently that I don't care one whit for your religious worship of the Constitution. It's worth as much as used toilet paper. How stupid does someone have to be to think that in 200 years we haven't gotten smart enough to enumerate nature and the philosophy of government in a better way than those who wrote it? They were smart for their time, but of the same species as us, and with less philosophy and information.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Now, I think if you held the idea that the Constitution forbids the making of laws about public display of body parts -- maybe because the founders agreed with Jahryn -- it seems likely that whatever phrase you would point to to argue this view would not allow you to make laws banning the revealing of my scrotum but not some woman's nipples. Perhaps Jahryn's view can be tortured from the Constitution in some emanation emanating from some penumbra, but surely the Constitution lacks any detailed specific commentary on scrotums and nipples that would be required to support that sort of a legal policy.

I don't know how much they would have to torture it, but it wouldn't be inconsistent, and I don't think it would even be less plausible than the rationale of the SCOTUS in some cases.
But purely for example, let's consider a hypothetical proposed state law banning women from showing any skin, except for the eyes, but allowing men to show a lot of skin. That might be considered unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, or for some other reason. Do you think that those who have that sort of view are also committed, on pain of inconsistency (or of torturing the Constitution, perhaps?), to the view that any state law regulating what parts of the body may be visible in public would be unconstitutional?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Only a perv would pull out their dick in public.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only a perv would pull out their dick in public.

You beat me to it.

 

[Valjean]

Tempest in a teacup.
If women bob their hair, expose their legs, or arms, or midriffs -- or breasts --there will be a flurry of indignation by bluenoses followed by gradual acceptance as a commonplace.

 

[dismal]

Hmm, I didn't think my statement was so complicated to interpret. I think Jahryn's view that defining somethings as "dirty bits" is inherently arbitrary, and therefore there should be no laws against displaying any body parts is defensible. The legal policy is consistent with the view of his original premise. Another view could be that members of society's, for whatever reason which may seem arbitrary to some, can and do have views that certain body parts are dirty, and are capable of expressing those views in the political process of said society. Again, the legal policy is consistent with the original premise.

Now, I think if you held the idea that the Constitution forbids the making of laws about public display of body parts -- maybe because the founders agreed with Jahryn -- it seems likely that whatever phrase you would point to to argue this view would not allow you to make laws banning the revealing of my scrotum but not some woman's nipples. Perhaps Jahryn's view can be tortured from the Constitution in some emanation emanating from some penumbra, but surely the Constitution lacks any detailed specific commentary on scrotums and nipples that would be required to support that sort of a legal policy.

By the way, when you say that there is a fair amount of consensus, are you talking about consensus in America, or generally consensus among humans, across societies?

The statements about making laws would apply to the consensus prevailing in the district where the laws are made. Of course any statement pertaining to the US Constitution would only be relevant in the US.

You're funny. I've told you consistently that I don't care one whit for your religious worship of the Constitution. It's worth as much as used toilet paper. How stupid does someone have to be to think that in 200 years we haven't gotten smart enough to enumerate nature and the philosophy of government in a better way than those who wrote it? They were smart for their time, but of the same species as us, and with less philosophy and information.

Hmmm, I don't recall being the one to invoke the Constitution here. You must have missed upbraiding the person who did when it happened.

In any case, I think if someone wishes to claim something is unconstitutional and therefor not subject to the regular democratic process they have some burden to point out what part of the 200 year old document it offends. It seems highly inconsistent to rely on it as an overarching legal force and simultaneously say it is worth less than toilet paper.

 

[Jarhyn]

Hmm, I didn't think my statement was so complicated to interpret. I think Jahryn's view that defining somethings as "dirty bits" is inherently arbitrary, and therefore there should be no laws against displaying any body parts is defensible. The legal policy is consistent with the view of his original premise. Another view could be that members of society's, for whatever reason which may seem arbitrary to some, can and do have views that certain body parts are dirty, and are capable of expressing those views in the political process of said society. Again, the legal policy is consistent with the original premise.

Now, I think if you held the idea that the Constitution forbids the making of laws about public display of body parts -- maybe because the founders agreed with Jahryn -- it seems likely that whatever phrase you would point to to argue this view would not allow you to make laws banning the revealing of my scrotum but not some woman's nipples. Perhaps Jahryn's view can be tortured from the Constitution in some emanation emanating from some penumbra, but surely the Constitution lacks any detailed specific commentary on scrotums and nipples that would be required to support that sort of a legal policy.

By the way, when you say that there is a fair amount of consensus, are you talking about consensus in America, or generally consensus among humans, across societies?

The statements about making laws would apply to the consensus prevailing in the district where the laws are made. Of course any statement pertaining to the US Constitution would only be relevant in the US.

You're funny. I've told you consistently that I don't care one whit for your religious worship of the Constitution. It's worth as much as used toilet paper. How stupid does someone have to be to think that in 200 years we haven't gotten smart enough to enumerate nature and the philosophy of government in a better way than those who wrote it? They were smart for their time, but of the same species as us, and with less philosophy and information.

Hmmm, I don't recall being the one to invoke the Constitution here. You must have missed upbraiding the person who did when it happened.

In any case, I think if someone wishes to claim something is unconstitutional and therefor not subject to the regular democratic process they have some burden to point out what part of the 200 year old document it offends. It seems highly inconsistent to rely on it as an overarching legal force and simultaneously say it is worth less than toilet paper.

I've never supported it's value excepting where it can be used to bring ignorant blighters who worship the document with rabid foaming fervor into a rough accordance with the ethics produced at the intersection of the fullness of human capability, the laws of nature, and an assumed desire to remain alive. In other words to manipulate those who are incapable of reason insofar as they need be manipulated.

 

[ideologyhunter]

OK, forget all this Constitutional sturm und drang. When is the DVD of Women of Westboro Baptist coming out, and how do I get the unrated version?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tempest in a teacup.
If women bob their hair, expose their legs, or arms, or midriffs -- or breasts --there will be a flurry of indignation by bluenoses followed by gradual acceptance as a commonplace.

And there are places where toplessness is legal--yet very few women actually go topless in such places.

 

[blastula]

I'll say it. TTIUWP!

 

[Trausti]

It's disappointing that in a thread ostensibly about bare breasts we only get a dick pic.

 

[dismal]

It's disappointing that in a thread ostensibly about bare breasts we only get a dick pic.

If only someone could come up with some way for there to be pictures of naked girls on the internet. I bet that would be popular.