# Topless Women



## MisterMike (Mar 2, 2004)

I thought that would get some people looking in here.

With all the controversy around the gay marriage thing due to it's "gender-based" standpoint on equality, why shouldn't the same apply for women wearing tops at the beach?

Can a person be "for" one and "against" the other?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 2, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I thought that would get some people looking in here.
> 
> With all the controversy around the gay marriage thing due to it's "gender-based" standpoint on equality, why shouldn't the same apply for women wearing tops at the beach?
> 
> Can a person be "for" one and "against" the other?


Personally, I think if you have the body you can display it. If yo do nothave the body then be polite 

And yes I think you can be for one and not the other.

Topless would or could be an affront to some people, and is a public display, yet just being married does not cause an affront in public.

Now you could argue that kissing in public no matter the mix, could also be an affront, yet, the hetro kiss is much more accepted, just look at the recent Madonna and Britney hoop la.

Just my opinions


----------



## Quick Sand (Mar 2, 2004)

Here in Ontario, it's also perfectly legal for a women to go around topless in any public place she wants.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Mar 2, 2004)

I love the idea of women going "topless",but "having the body" is the problem.If you give the right to the beautiful,you also give the right to the ugly.I have enough imagination(with the revieling styles these days)that I don't need to see them topless,I know exactly what they have.Anyone who has ever visited a "nude" beach knows exactly what I mean.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 2, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> I love the idea of women going "topless",but "having the body" is the problem.If you give the right to the beautiful,you also give the right to the ugly.I have enough imagination(with the revieling styles these days)that I don't need to see them topless,I know exactly what they have.Anyone who has ever visited a "nude" beach knows exactly what I mean.


Nude beaches are mostly old men just hanging out on the beach :barf: 

OH did I say that out loud


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 2, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Nude beaches are mostly old men just hanging out on the beach :barf:
> 
> OH did I say that out loud



Now that was discriminatory.  There might be old men on this forum who hang out at nude beaches.  You are going to hurt their feelings...

Also, Ontario, sounds kind of like heaven....oh wait a minute that is how I always end up in the 2nd level of Hell...


----------



## Gary Crawford (Mar 2, 2004)

Nude beaches are mostly old men just hanging out on the beach  

                                                                     That's exactly what I mean,you allow people to expose themselves and you never see what you want to see.If you want to see some healthy looking breasts,go to a strip bar.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Now that was discriminatory. There might be old men on this forum who hang out at nude beaches. You are going to hurt their feelings...
> 
> Also, Ontario, sounds kind of like heaven....oh wait a minute that is how I always end up in the 2nd level of Hell...


I support their right to do it , I just do not prefer it


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 2, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I thought that would get some people looking in here.
> With all the controversy around the gay marriage thing due to it's "gender-based" standpoint on equality, why shouldn't the same apply for women wearing tops at the beach?
> Can a person be "for" one and "against" the other?


What exactly are you asking ... if married lesbians can go to the beach? 

This is an awfully big non-sequiture.

What rights do you think are being denied to a woman on those public beaches that require women to cover their breasts?

What harm do you think women who are not free to sun-bathe topless suffer compared to those who choose to sun-bathe with their tops covered? Outside of the increased risk for cancer.

Come On' MisterMike. I have seen very thoughtful posts from you. Why are you disengaging your brain on this issue?

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 3, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also, Ontario, sounds kind of like heaven....oh wait a minute that is how I always end up in the 2nd level of Hell...



Well, in this part of New York State, they don't call it the Canadian Ballet for nothing.  I get in so much trouble whenever I go to Toronto for my son's hockey tournaments.... maybe it is the grass is greener syndrome but all the wait staff (girls in my case) are gorgeous.


----------



## Quick Sand (Mar 3, 2004)

I said it was perfectly legal. I didn't say many people acutally do it. I've been living here for four years and I still haven't seen a woman walking around without a top on. It only became legal sometime around '97 (can't remember exactly what year) and most of the people I know who have lived here their entire lives have only ever seen one or two women do it. It's very, very rare. 

That being said, one of my friends was working the pick up window at a fast food restaurant and an OLD lady on a motorcycle came through topless.  On a beach is one thing but a motorcycle !!!!!  What about bugs and rocks popping up off the road and stuff????   :idunno: Ouch. No thanks.


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 3, 2004)

When I went out to dinner last night..... We had a Topless Waitress..........




NO BRAIN at all!!!!!!!!


 %-}


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 3, 2004)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> When I went out to dinner last night..... We had a Topless Waitress..........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I have had this type of service before


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 3, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Yes, I have had this type of service before




heeeheeee


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 3, 2004)

taking it back to a more serious response, I don't really see the correlation between topless laws and legalized same sex marriages but I applaud the idea of analogy.

Here's one for ya'll:

With all the 'boob banter' going on here:

If you could hear a table of people talking like this in a restaraunt (family type not a hooters or what ever), would you think it was appropriate or offensive?  What if it was a table of homosexuals having a similar discussion about the object of their obsession/sexual preference?  

I guess my point is that gender has nothing to do with classy behavior.  I get a seriously bruised shoulder in Toronto from my future wife because, until I acclimatize, my head is on a swivel.  The same could be true of a gay married couple.  I really have a problem with the assumption that gay means 'dirty' 'kinky' or 'perverse'.  I would say it isn't for me, but I can imagine that there are some pretty prudish homosexuals out there, just like there are in the hetero world.

Public displays of affection was mentioned somewhere so I don't know if that would fall into the same category as POA's, but I think both, for hetero observing/hearing homo, might create discomfort or out right hostility.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What exactly are you asking ... if married lesbians can go to the beach?
> 
> This is an awfully big non-sequiture.
> 
> ...



I'm just comparing 2 policies that are based on gender.

Men can only marry women/Women can only marry men.
Women can not go topless/Men can go topless.

The hypocracy:
Why is that sexual preference when it comes to state marriage is abhorred but yet no one cares that we have rules for women that men do not have to follow?

1st school of thought:
Is it because what we have been taught is proper and descent is holding out over blind interpretation of the law? Should it not be the same that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman? In some countries women cannot show their hair or faces. Here at least we allow swimsuits in the summer.

If homosexuals feel their rights are infringed because they do not have access to the same things as same-sex couples, then they should work on repealing those obstacles. Just as women who want to go topless should petition to go topless if they want, not force men to wear bikini tops too.

2nd school of thought:
If we are to honor everything so it is equal with regards to race, sexuality, gender, etc, then everything written against one of those items should be re-worked or pulled from the books. So we allow gays to be state married and allow women to go topless because both policies are based on gender or sexuality.

My mind is quite engaged on this. It seems some justify one over the other.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 3, 2004)

Wow, and I called it Booby Banter.   I feel so cheap


----------



## someguy (Mar 3, 2004)

If a woman really wants to go topless than they should.  How many really want to enough to put up a fight over it.  THere is a differnce in the two things though going topless and gay marrigige are very differnt.  Those to are  kind of similar.You could also say that Hitler and Jesus are similar.  They both made giant impacts on Jews in their days.  Both the comparisons are flawed as is my comparison between the comparisions.  My point is though that it is very differnt to say that women going topless and gay marrige are similar is not true.  Going topless would be a choice something you could do for a while and change freely.  Gay marrige would be longer lasting.
that said I doubt it makes much sense so I'll say yeah theres a differnce I just can't quite show it well enough probably.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 3, 2004)

"Going topless would be a choice something you could do for a while and change freely. Gay marrige would be longer lasting."

There is a hint of an idea that topless is a conscious choice and gay is not a choice, but a genetic thing.  Is that the premise you are working from?

I understand what you are saying if that is the point, but I think the focus of the comparison between the topless and the gay marriage issues is in social perception and legislation and not the individual behavior/choice issue.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, There are some downsides to going topless. First off, most guys are going to go nuts when they see boobs. I think it's a dumb idea to go topless. Its better to wear the shirt or clothes over top of the breasts due to the fact that it arouses rape and such. Yeah, its the guy's fault for not controlling himself, but also it helps not having the temptation there. Also, there is a reason why most states make it a law not to go topless. Yeah, you all know why, but it's the law. It's like saying its stupid to not smoke until your 18+, but its the law. I mean, it's crazy. And no I don't smoke.

In Florida, it's illegal to not cover the breasts, particularly the nipples. The thing that gets me and so many others though is this: A girl can paint her nipples, completely cover them in paint, or paint her breasts and such and they call that a covering, as long as the nipples are covered so that the skin color is covered, even clear nail polish. I mean, it's like the wet t-shirt contests. You can see everything and it's basically the same thing. But the police can't get you because it is a covering. LOL. I mean it's the stupidest thing, but it's legal. Amazing how liberty made things so legit.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Its better to wear the shirt or clothes over top of the breasts due to the fact that it arouses rape and such.


The naivete in this comment is beyond the pale. Such a foolish comment displays an incredible lack of understanding and thought.

*Naked breasts do not cause rape. *

Rape is a crime of violence and power. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Please insert your own ad hominem attack here!


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm just comparing 2 policies that are based on gender.


I think the fallacy in this is that the two policies are not based on gender. While gender is a component of the topics you mention, they are not the fundamental part of the discussion.

Certainly, same-sex marriage can only occur between two people who have the same gender, but it does not necessarily follow that it is a gender policy. I think same-sex marriage is about legal rights, responsibilities and privledges, at least that is how those wishing to participate in this type of legal relationship view it. When you devolve the discussion to gender, you are lessening the validity of your own arguement.

A woman going topless in public is also an issue that has a gender based component. Certainly, there are places that women who wish to practice toplessness can do so undisturbed, even if there are laws prohibiting such behavior. I have certainly seen women exposing their tops in public in order to breast feed an infant {I think this site is not common enough}.

I guess I would ask you to clarify, what are some of the rights and priveledges that a woman who wishes to go topless is denied by the prohibition against it? 

In the interest of fairness and debate, I will list here only some of the rights prohibited to same-sex couples, that are granted to their opposite-sex counterparts.

*The right to make decisions on a partners' behalf in a medical emergency.
*The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner (The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993).
*The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
*The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means.
*The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup.
*Family-related Social Security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family related military and veterens benefits.
*The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.
*The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job. 

The same-sex marriage discussion is not a gender-based debate. - Mike


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 3, 2004)

Ok, Mike...Its a hidden fact I guess. It may sound naive, but in reality, flaunting has some sexuality to do with it. Oh, yeah Rape is a crime, but no matter how you look at it, there is sex involved. There have been SO many cases that the guy saw some girl wearing a sexy outfit and followed her and raped her. It's not just violence and power, there are plenty of people who want to rape a girl just for the pleasure of sexual gratification. Last time I checked, a large majority of date rape had to do with the fact that the guy couldn't get his hands on the girl sexually otherwise. So, he used a drug and raped her. Appeal does have to do with rape. I mean, yeah, it had to do with power, but how often do you hear of a girl who is over-weight and isn't quite pretty being raped? Very rarely. Yeah some, but the majority I know are slim and...sexy. 


So, I guess your comment was somewhat naive. Rape isn't just a crime about power and violence. That comment in itself is so naive, I can't even think where to begin. That's just...yeah. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. I've heard some stories from people about being raped. Not to sound perverted here, but if alot of guys don't get aroused by seeing naked breast, are they gay? are all guys gay? Maybe it's just in Florida. Heck, Maybe just Central Florida.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, I know the gay thing is an issue of each person's choice nowadays, but the clothing issue...err...it's the law. So, there is no point to saying why woman should be able to go around topless. It's just pointless, I mean, wishing for a new car and not having the money won't get you a new car. So why should this issue be any different. It's not a personal choice, its a legit law. And to do otherwise is illegal. Go to Europe. Or out in the African Jungle or somewhere else.

And just to say, I do think the Female form is Beautiful and I'm not gay, but seriously, I don't want to walk around naked being a guy, so I don't want the girls around me walking around naked, either. And yeah, this part hear in this paragraph is my opinion.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 3, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ok, Mike...Its a hidden fact I guess. It may sound naive, but in reality, flaunting has some sexuality to do with it. Oh, yeah Rape is a crime, but no matter how you look at it, there is sex involved. There have been SO many cases that the guy saw some girl wearing a sexy outfit and followed her and raped her. It's not just violence and power, there are plenty of people who want to rape a girl just for the pleasure of sexual gratification. Last time I checked, a large majority of date rape had to do with the fact that the guy couldn't get his hands on the girl sexually otherwise. So, he used a drug and raped her. Appeal does have to do with rape. I mean, yeah, it had to do with power, but how often do you hear of a girl who is over-weight and isn't quite pretty being raped? Very rarely. Yeah some, but the majority I know are slim and...sexy.
> 
> 
> So, I guess your comment was somewhat naive. Rape isn't just a crime about power and violence. That comment in itself is so naive, I can't even think where to begin. That's just...yeah. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. I've heard some stories from people about being raped. Not to sound perverted here, but if alot of guys don't get aroused by seeing naked breast, are they gay? are all guys gay? Maybe it's just in Florida. Heck, Maybe just Central Florida.


 
ShoalinWolf,

I beg to differ with you. Please stay with me. You said only Pretty girls get attacked and raped. Hmmmm, I would like to see your source on this data.
As to over weight, if the person being attacked has more mass it is harder to control and the threat from damage is there as well from the victum. Yet the smaller victums are easier to handle and easier to drag away.

As to Sex and Rape being the same, I think it is not the same. Sex is about enjoyment between two people. Rape is power and violence of one person to another or over another. If you are in jail and you are raped, is this about sex, or is this about power?

As to sexy dress, this is an easy target. The person at hand is in heels or dress or outfit that does not allow for easy running nor does it allow for easy motion to defend yourself. These are things the predators look for. Easy targets who are not paying attention to their surroundings.

Now as to your comment about being gay. I do not think so. Just because you yourself or the way your were raised, does not find somethign attractive, or can only get aroused by also having emotions for the person you are attracted too, does not mean you are gay. It means you are a nice boy/person. Yet, by your comments that people are sexy, you are aware of sexuality. 

Peace


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 3, 2004)

Ok, I was wrong on stating that fact. I meant it as an example, but it was not a good one. Sorry. Well, I should have said that easy targets are what predators go after. Your right, my mistake. Anyways, It's not all about power. I know everybody says it is and the crime of rape is known as that, but it is not only that. Yes it is part of that. And the thing with sex, ummm, sex happens between two bodies(ok for some sickos, it happens between more). The other can be unconcious. And yes Rape is violence and power. I just mean that alot of the rapes I hear happen to be those easy targets you so named by description. Those who are powerless to protect themselves. Yes its a thing with power, but they also want self gratification. Don't tell me rapist don't get sexual gratification by raping people. 

Its kind of like saying a guy with a gun who goes around killing people isn't doing for the sake of killing, but for power and violence and fun. Ok, so that was a bad example. They do that for those reasons. And also for the fact of killing others they don't like, but I guess still it was a bad example. lol...sorry. 
And yes I'm not gay. I'm straight. And anyway, I kind of side tracked from the topic at hand. And I started an arguement. So, let's get back to the matter at hand.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 3, 2004)

> Certainly, same-sex marriage can only occur between two people who have the same gender, but it does not necessarily follow that it is a gender policy.



Wow. OK. I'm not even going to touch that. I'll let you ponder it a bit more.



> I guess I would ask you to clarify, what are some of the rights and priveledges that a woman who wishes to go topless is denied by the prohibition against it?



Well, while you have provided a few for the same-sex marriage arguement, I really don't see how it matters how many I come up with for going topless.

Let's say the "score" was your 8 to my sayyyyy 1. You can't possibly try to change the focus of the issue, which is the fact that if we are to allow one thing for a person based on gender, we have to allow all decisions to be non-discriminative. Nice try.

Now for the record, I am not for either of these, but I enjoy the Socratic approach and logic (granted it is based on a premise you do not agree with and are really failing at convincing me otherwise).


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 3, 2004)

Just to point out, incase some people are wondering, MichaelEdward said that, not me...lol, ok keep moving...


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 3, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Wow. OK. I'm not even going to touch that. I'll let you ponder it a bit more.


Herein lies the disconnect. Apparently, you have not discussed same-sex marriage with any people who are denied the right to marry based on this policy. Because certainly, they would inform you that it is not a 'Gender Issue'. Just as your male gender does not make you a heterosexual person.
As long as you are defining it as an issue of gender, your parachute is not all the way open.
I remind you the same arguements were made about race some 40 or 50 years ago, when it was not legal for couples of different races to marry.

"Blacks and Whites shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are of different race."




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, while you have provided a few for the same-sex marriage arguement, I really don't see how it matters how many I come up with for going topless.
> Let's say the "score" was your 8 to my sayyyyy 1.


Legal marriage grants between *120-300* state rights and responsibilities, depending upon the state of residence. On the federal level, more than *1,049* rights and responsibilities are granted.

Hopefully, there is more than 1 right denied to a woman who desires to go topless, when compared to the number of rights that are granted to women who wear their tops covered in public. Certainly, if you provide a comprehensive list, I will join the fight to guarantee equal protection under the laws of state and country, because ALL citizens should share in the privledges and responsibilities of citizenship. 



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> You can't possibly try to change the focus of the issue, which is the fact that if we are to allow one thing for a person based on gender, we have to allow all decisions to be non-discriminative. Nice try.


Well, yes, I can try to change the focus of the issue. In fact, I think I have done a convincing arguement on changing the focus of the issue; which, incidently is that opposite-sex couples that choose to marry are granted more than 1000 rights which are denied to same-sex couples because of the 'Traditional' (whatever that means) definition of marriage. (by the way, the definition of 'Traditional' Massachusetts is that "city clerks can arbitrarily decide to deny same-sex couples what is legally their due under the state constitution - what about 'Activist City Clerks' those ba$tard$).

But, regardless of how adept I have been at focusing light on the issue at hand ... even the issue you put forth here is a fallacy. You say, if we grant a right for one thing, based on gender, it follows that all other gender based rights must be granted. This is just not true.

For example, the right to operate a motor vehicle is granted based on written and driven tests, as well as age. But because you have the right to drive an automobile, it does not follow that you have the right to operate an aircraft, a commercial vehicle, a schoolbus, or a locomotive.

The right to freedom of speech, does not give you the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater. 




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Now for the record, I am not for either of these, but I enjoy the Socratic approach and logic (granted it is based on a premise you do not agree with and are really failing at convincing me otherwise).


I find it odd that you mention the Socratic approach in the same sentence that you state your beliefs. As I understand the Socratic method, it begins with the professed ignorance of the topics to be discussed. By stated that you are not for either same-sex marriage or women going topless in public, you have staked out your position. (although I will grant you .. you did not start the topic by stating a position). 

I really don't think that Same-Sex Marriage and Toplessness have anything to do with one another. - Mike

P.S. I'm still amazed that ShaolinWolf said that "most guys go nuts when they see boobs" ... again ... please insert your own ad hominem joke here.


----------



## Quick Sand (Mar 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> P.S. I'm still amazed that ShaolinWolf said that "most guys go nuts when they see boobs" ... again ... please insert your own ad hominem joke here.



I'm hoping it's because he's only 17 . . . . . . . :shrug:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 4, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I thought that would get some people looking in here.
> 
> With all the controversy around the gay marriage thing due to it's "gender-based" standpoint on equality, why shouldn't the same apply for women wearing tops at the beach?
> 
> Can a person be "for" one and "against" the other?


Hows that saying go? "I hold the art of Kenpo sacred and will defend with all the skill I posses the right for women to go topless in public, and oh, the weak and helpless as well...". I can never remember those pledges(ha ha).


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 4, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ok, Mike...Its a hidden fact I guess. It may sound naive, but in reality, flaunting has some sexuality to do with it. Oh, yeah Rape is a crime, but no matter how you look at it, there is sex involved. There have been SO many cases that the guy saw some girl wearing a sexy outfit and followed her and raped her. It's not just violence and power, there are plenty of people who want to rape a girl just for the pleasure of sexual gratification. Last time I checked, a large majority of date rape had to do with the fact that the guy couldn't get his hands on the girl sexually otherwise. So, he used a drug and raped her. Appeal does have to do with rape. I mean, yeah, it had to do with power, but how often do you hear of a girl who is over-weight and isn't quite pretty being raped? Very rarely. Yeah some, but the majority I know are slim and...sexy.
> 
> 
> So, I guess your comment was somewhat naive. Rape isn't just a crime about power and violence. That comment in itself is so naive, I can't even think where to begin. That's just...yeah. I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. I've heard some stories from people about being raped. Not to sound perverted here, but if alot of guys don't get aroused by seeing naked breast, are they gay? are all guys gay? Maybe it's just in Florida. Heck, Maybe just Central Florida.


Man what world are you living in? Just being a woman will get you raped. Rapists will rape 90 year old women, developmently disabled women, and they rape men in prison if they have to. Rape is a crime of oportunity, not a "Gosh, she sure is pretty!". As for date rape, once again its about opportunity.
Sean


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 4, 2004)

"I just mean that alot of the rapes I hear happen to be those easy targets you so named by description. Those who are powerless to protect themselves. Yes its a thing with power, but they also want self gratification. Don't tell me rapist don't get sexual gratification by raping people."

I wouldn't try to say that Rapists don't find gratification, sexual or other types, through the act of Raping someone.  But SEXUAL arrousal in these cases is induced by the overpowering of another human being.  There are case studies of serial murderers and other pathological types expressing their gratification (ejaculation).  This is not the same thing as having sex for the goal of intercourse.

It is about motivation and intent.  The intent of the rapist is to use sex to dominate another person.  The intent of the serial killer, in general because there are so many specifics, is to use the ritual of killing to exorcise some personal demon. 

Think of it in terms of child behavior.  A child wants to be paid attention to so it tries everything it can... then breaks something and learns that it gets tons of attention, so it breaks other stuff whenever it wants attention.  The child's intent is to get attention, the act is just an expression of that desire.

The motivation and intent of rapists and others is like this basic example kicked up to a very anti-social level.  There are very qualified people who study this stuff with scientific discipline and volumes of reseach and direct interview of rapist experience.

Paul M


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 4, 2004)

A fellow serviceman one day got a call in the shop that his 8 year old son was raped by two older boys with a stick in his anus.  By technical legal definition this is not rape because it didn't involve penetration of a vagina, but in the social sense I would call this a rape.  The boys might have gotten some sexual satisfaction from this, but it seems more like an extreme case of bullying gone very wrong.  Power, not a desire for sex.

It was really horrible, in the papers and news and everything.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 4, 2004)

As far as date rape, it goes from sexual desire to power when the agressor will not listen to the woman, or man's, desire to stop.  When the agressor is imposing his/her will on another person against the other person's permission, it is a power struggle, not sexual desire.

Paul M


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 4, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Hows that saying go? "I hold the art of Kenpo sacred and will defend with all the skill I posses the right for women to go topless in public, and oh, the weak and helpless as well...". I can never remember those pledges(ha ha).



Oh geeze Sean... back to the books for you!!!

I hold the Art of Womanizing sacred,:ladysman:and will defend with all the skill I possess the rights of women to do as they please (including going topless in public) as long as they don't hurt anyone. :angel:  They have no weapons, other than their fingernails, teeth, spike heels, woman's scorn and of course their Man!   I shall never let hormones rule my passions and will protect the weaker sex, the helpless and or the sexually challenged.   I pledge an unswerving loyalty to the defense of these creatures, I shall fight:boxing:  only if  forced to defend their honor, protect their species, and accept all gratuitous rewards   they may bestow on me for same, I pledge my all.

Now, don't forget it..... go study.
 :uhyeah:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 4, 2004)

Just a question TouchO'Death, did you read my second comment? I said thatI was wrong...I made a mistake, being symbolic, I realized how bad it was symbolically. And the thing about me being 17 only being that guys go crazy at looking at boobs. Err, that remains to be doubted. I see so many guys, who happen to be in their 30s and up going to the mall just to look at girls. Its hillarious, sitting on the bench eating ice cream and some guy is standing a few feet away with his sunglasses on and he's in his late 20s early 30s. He stands there and look at all the girls who are formly dressed and then he just acts like he's just looking around. I mean, plenty of guys grab breasts at concerts and all that. And I know countless guys in college and above that are perverts reading playboy type stuff, not that I'm friends with them. LOL. 

Anyways, I said in my second comment that I was wrong. OK?! Anyways, yes it's mostly women getting raped, but little boys and such get raped too, just not in the same manner. And I'm not going to talk on what Rape is about, because yes it's power, but I'm not going to argue that. Everyone has different experiences with being around people. I agree with what you all have been saying about rape, just not the topless issue, I don't agree about that. Anyways, I'm out.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 4, 2004)

Its funny. In many parts of the world, they don't even think twice about it. Breasts are just part of the body. A milk producing gland on women, useless decoration on the guys.

In the US, they are this mysterious daemon that holds so much power, that they cause good, god fearing christians to lose all control, throw caution, salvation and common sence to the four winds and risk eternal damnation for a moments glimse of the "forbidden TaTas!".  Please, noone tell my girlfriend about this...she'd walk around leveling whole neighborhoods. 

In the 20's, both men and women were required to wear head to toe swimwear.  Swimwear that was potentially dangerous in its water absorbtion properties.

By the 50's, things had relaxed a bit and the bikini was popular, in the full bottom style, no navel visible designs because those evil navels could also drive men to acts of wild destruction.

By the 70's we had mostly conquered the evils of the navel, thanks in part to that wicked Jeanie in the bottle.  Swimwear began shrinking.

Today, we have ultra-micro-kinis such as those made by Wicked Weasle.  Little more than floss, they allow the ultimate in tanline prevention, and can double as dental-floss in a pinch.


The interesting thing is that while the US remains mired in outdated concepts, the rest of the world continues to grow and expand.
Austrailia, Canada, France and many more nations have taken their minds out of the gutter, and allow for public nudity.  Seems they understand the difference between nudity, and indecency or obsenity.

Too bad some don't.


First some definitions:


> What is rape? What is sexual assault?
> 
> 
> Every state has its own definitions of rape and sexual assault, so the precise definition depends on where you live. That said, here's a general definition of the terms:
> ...


Now, a few stats:


> <LI>In 2002, there were 247,730 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
> Of these approximately 248,000 victims, about 87,000 were victims of completed rape, 70,000 were victims of attempted rape, and 91,000 were victims of sexual assault.


And, its not just the women...



> Men, too
> 
> 
> About three percent of American men - a total of 2.78 million menhave experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. [Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women 1998.]
> In 2002, one in every eight rape victims were male.




More facts, figures, details, and information is available at http://www.rainn.org/ for those who wish to educate themselves on that particular subject, and not live in ignorance.


Other References:
http://www.netnude.com/
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/intoples.htm


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 4, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Its funny. both women and MEN today, have ultra-micro-kinis such as little more than floss, which can double as dental-floss in a pinch.



Like this?........


----------



## someguy (Mar 4, 2004)

So if the mini micro bikinis can act as floss should people use floss as bikinis in a pinch? :uhyeah:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 4, 2004)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Like this?........


STOP! I'm meltinnnnggg....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 4, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> So if the mini micro bikinis can act as floss should people use floss as bikinis in a pinch? :uhyeah:


 Well....some of them are so thin, I can't see why not.

http://wickedweasel.com/  (Note-this is a swimear company in Austrailia.  Some nudity and very skimpy outfits exist.  So, don't go there if you are offended by such things)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 4, 2004)

Goldendragon7 said:
			
		

> Like this?........


:barf:


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 4, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> :barf:




Very well put

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian:


----------



## Goldendragon7 (Mar 4, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Well....some of this swimwear is so thin, I can't see why they wear any at all.... it is hot.   So, don't go there if you are offended by such things) http://wickedweasel.com/



YOU WERE NOT KIDDING!!!!!



			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Some nudity and very skimpy outfits exist.



Like this........ sheesh.....


----------



## jfarnsworth (Mar 4, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Yes, I have had this type of service before



_(looks around for that type of service)_   :uhyeah:


----------



## Chronuss (Mar 4, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Personally, I think if you have the body you can display it. If yo do nothave the body then be polite



that's how I am...I am considerate of my fellow human beings...I cover my fat **** up..


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 5, 2004)

Alrighty then, I think we have degraded back to a level that the term "Booby Banter" fits again.  This is a little locker roomish at this point don't you think?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 5, 2004)

OH MY GOSH!!!!...lol...man, that guy has no dignity...if it was someone here, sorry...YECK!!! Not on my list of things to wear. LOL


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 5, 2004)

Heh...yup..we've drifted a bit.

Ok...back to the original subject....


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 5, 2004)

Yeah, let's do...lol, I don't even want to see that man in the speedo/string bikini again. *Runs away, screaming in terror* AAAAAH!!!!


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 7, 2004)

With all of the definitions of propriety, how can anyone claim to know what is "right"?


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 8, 2004)

It's not that hard! First eliminate what is wrong. ie. Fiftyish men and women on the beaches of hollywood fla. in speedos and thong bikinis is just wrong.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Mar 8, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> It's not that hard! First eliminate what is wrong. ie. Fiftyish men and women on the beaches of hollywood fla. in speedos and thong bikinis is just wrong.


LOL...ROFL...BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!....*laughs so hard, he cries*....WHOOO-HAHAHAHA...eh-heh...I couldn't have said it any better...I wouldn't have laughed, but you just had to put the example as the speedo thing. HEHEHEHEHEH!!!!...Yeah, seriously, how do we know what is right? Ummm, that's a simple question: Know what is wrong and stray from it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 8, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> It's not that hard! First eliminate what is wrong. ie. Fiftyish men and women on the beaches of hollywood fla. in speedos and thong bikinis is just wrong.



Don't you think this is a combination of ageism and weight discrimination?  Don't you think that you might be making someone feel poorly about their age or their weight?  Isn't it wrong to make people feel bad?  Is it more wrong to make someone feel bad then it is to wear skimpy bathing suits?


----------

