chyron8472

The culture and the laws are intertwined, yes, but the discussion about them is different. Should we have decency laws? What kind? What should the penalties be for them? Are there different penalties for this infraction than for that one? How much of an infraction is an infraction? et al.

It is its own rabbit hole of a discussion aside from discussing why the culture should change to adopt acceptance of women going topless in public (which we also can’t agree on and for which I haven’t seen objective evidence to support why women, by and large, are wronged.)

TV’s Frink said:

The two are entirely intertwined, but ok.

It makes the topic of women going topless in public more complex of a discussion than just should-they or should-they-not.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

Seriously, I, speaking only for myself, know no women who have a problem with women covering their breasts in public. Talking about decency laws that enforce cultural norms to that effect are a bit of a different topic, because that gets into what the penalty is or should be.

Women covering their breasts in public does not intersect with decency laws that enforce culture norms and contain penalties?

Discussing decency laws is a different rabbit hole.

Seriously, I, speaking only for myself, personally know no women who have a problem with women covering their breasts in public. Talking about decency laws that enforce cultural norms to that effect are a bit of a different topic, because that gets into what the penalty is or should be.

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

Ever wonder why dudes used to go crazy over legs?

They still do in some cultures. I’m saying cultural acceptance of a norm is not unfair per se.

It is if […] women the people who are subject to this norm/law find it unfair.

But most of them don’t. And such a law doesn’t hurt or degrade them as lesser people than men. They just have additional private parts.

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

Citing equality doesn’t really fit, because they are not equal. Saying a woman should be paid as much as a man because a woman’s ability or intelligence is equal is not the same thing as saying women’s bodies, which are not identical to men’s, should be treated identically. Having a woman cover her breasts does not lower her social standing or make her to be inferior to a man.

Let’s turn the tables. Is the argument that a certain part of a man’s body should be censored because it’s different from that part on a woman a valid argument to you?

I don’t think it is censored because it different. I think there are reasons other than simply it being different as to why it is censored, and those reasons are potentially sound.

Women’s breasts aren’t just different-and-that’s-it. Men have sexual responses to them. Women have clothing that accentuates them. Women and men both treat women’s physical bodies differently than women and men both treat men’s bodies. Women have different attractions to men than men do to women, and so arguing that men’s bodies and women’s bodies should be treated equally (or identically) “because” isn’t reason enough to not treat the differently.

You don’t think women have sexual responses to men’s exposed chests?

Yes, but perhaps not in the same way. And that also assumes all women have the same response as all other women, which is probably not true either.

Part of the reason why men have such pent up attraction to breasts is by the nature that most of the time they are concealed

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps men like being attracted to them. Perhaps women like men liking to be attracted to them.

Ever wonder why dudes used to go crazy over legs?

They still do in some cultures. I’m saying cultural acceptance of a norm is not unfair per se.

There are cultural norms that equate women as being inferior. I’m saying covering breasts is not one of them.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

Citing equality doesn’t really fit, because they are not equal. Saying a woman should be paid as much as a man because a woman’s ability or intelligence is equal is not the same thing as saying women’s bodies, which are not identical to men’s, should be treated identically. Having a woman cover her breasts does not lower her social standing or make her to be inferior to a man.

Let’s turn the tables. Is the argument that a certain part of a man’s body should be censored because it’s different from that part on a woman a valid argument to you?

But I don’t think it is censored because it is different. I think there are reasons other than simply it being different as to why it is censored, and those reasons are potentially sound.

Women’s breasts aren’t just different-and-that’s-it. Men have sexual responses to them. Women have clothing that accentuates them. Women and men both treat women’s physical bodies differently than women and men both treat men’s bodies. Women have different attractions to men than men do to women, and so arguing that men’s bodies and women’s bodies should be treated equally (or identically) “because” isn’t reason enough to not treat the differently.

I don’t think turning the tables like that works, because you’d have to turn the tables on other contributing factors, several of which I have no experience with (like the psychology and sexuality of women).

I don’t know. I’m not saying it should be. Really what I’m only saying is that progressives are just as subjective to their views as conservatives are; that things are what they are; and that this argument doesn’t address why, besides “we think it should”, that change is needed.

Citing equality doesn’t really fit, because they are not equal. Saying a woman should be paid as much as a man because a woman’s ability or intelligence is equal is not the same thing as saying women’s bodies, which are not identical to men’s, should be treated identically. Having a woman cover her breasts does not lower her social standing or make her to be inferior to a man.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Men can walk around without a shirt, women can’t.

Yes. To which I say, “So what?”

So their bodies are treated as more obscene than men’s. That’s all I’ve been saying the whole time, which was in direct response to Warb saying they aren’t, and I cannot understand how he (or you, apparently?) doesn’t understand or agree.

My point earlier, in comparing his position to yours, was I think your and his arguments have different underlying assumptions that don’t match. You are making an argument against a position he didn’t make, because you inferred information he didn’t communicate.

Warbler, in classifying women’s breasts as private parts, is equating all private parts, women’s and men’s, as equally obscene. Meanwhile, you are saying that women, because they have more private parts, are on the whole considered more obscene. I think these are arguing two different things entirely rather than directly opposing each other.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Men can walk around without a shirt, women can’t.

Yes. So what?

It’s just stupid to have that inequality.

Says you. Again, this is equally as subjective as Warbler’s argument.

All people should be treated equally.

People are not equal. Women and men are biologically different. Women are not inferior, but telling women to cover their breasts does not assume or imply this.

TV’s Frink said:

Men can walk around without a shirt, women can’t.

Yes. To which I say, “So what?”

Warbler is saying women’s bodies are not treated differently than men’s, in that women and men both have to cover up their private parts. What Warbler is implying, that you aren’t acknowledging, Frink, is that women have additional private parts that men do not have. He is classifying women’s breasts as private parts.

I do side with Warbler, but not because I believe women’s breast should be considered as private parts. They already are (albeit less private), and for objective reasons. My argument is against arbitrary argument.

Personally, for myself, I don’t believe the standard of decency toward women needs to be changed. I don’t think women’s bodies being treated differently than men’s is, in and of itself, bad.

The “equality” argument doesn’t hold up because that assumes differences are bad, which is not necessarily true.

[snip] (accidental quote instead of edit.)

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

As far as not wearing a bra, I’ve been married long enough to know that there is something to be said for the support they give with regard to any amount of exercise.

You had to be married to know this?

I had to have a relationship with a woman that was close enough and for long enough that she would tell me this, yes. One can not assume that because they bounce given no support that such bouncing can be uncomfortable or painful. I didn’t know this, nor did it occur to me, because I don’t have breasts.

Wow, ok.

Okay, what? Why am I an idiot for not thinking about it? It didn’t occur to me because it didn’t apply to me.

Possessed said:

Nobody is telling women to go topless. All we are saying is a woman’s body shouldn’t be treated as obscene.

But why? Why is the current standard of decency objectively bad?

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be changed. I’m not saying it should be changed. I’m saying either argument is arbitrary.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

As far as not wearing a bra, I’ve been married long enough to know that there is something to be said for the support they give with regard to any amount of exercise.

You had to be married to know this?

I had to have a relationship with a woman that was close enough and for long enough that she would tell me this, yes. One can not assume that because they bounce given no support that such bouncing can be uncomfortable or painful. I didn’t know this, nor did it occur to me, because I don’t have breasts.

yhwx said:

Show me one example of somebody saying that “things should change because they’ve always been the same.” Nobody has made that argument.

I’m not combing back through this thread, but yes, people may not have overtly made that argument but there is an underlying connotation that they feel things always being the same is an inferior concept.

For what reason should women’s breasts objectively be treated equally to men’s, other than that progressivism says so? Why is changing the way women’s breasts are treated objectively necessary?

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

Women’s bodies are treated differently than men’s bodies, in part, because men are physically and hormonally affected differently by physical appearance than women

You’re making the exact same argument as Warbler here. “Things should be treated differently because they’re different!”

I am not. Women and men are different, emotionally, physically, psychologically, sexually, et al. Therefore, women’s bodies and men’s bodies have objective reasoning for being accepted differently. There are other factors besides something as subjective as “the culture decided to be this way.”

Women’s bodies are treated differently than men’s bodies, in part, because men are physically and hormonally affected differently by physical appearance than women and because American culture at large grew out of a more puritanical lifestyle.

To say that things should change because they’ve always been the same is equally as arbitrary as saying that things should remain the same for the same reason.

For example, the reason why women wear bras now instead of corsets has less to do with cultural progressiveness toward women, but more to do with the push to save metal needed to otherwise use in World War I. And while we look down on the use of corsets today, plenty of women back in the day weren’t as bothered by it since it was just part of the culture.

See also: Today I Found Out: How WWI Got Women to Start Wearing Bras

Just because you are progressive and believe women should not have to wear swimsuits that cover their breasts, that does not make their acceptance by the culture objectively wrong and worthy of change. As far as not wearing a bra, I’ve been married long enough to know that there is something to be said for the support they give with regard to any amount of exercise.

Warbler said:

sorry

No need to apologize.

Wazzles said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

Possessed said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

Slavicuss said:

SilverWook said:

Jake had done some conventions before his current mental health problems caught up with him.

They wear thongs out in the desert? All that Tatooine sand trapped between the toes and under the nails…

Thongs with jeans look so bad.

Are thongs and sandals the same thing? I’m totally lost here.

Oh right, in America you call those skimpy underwear bottoms thongs. Weirdos. I think that what we normal people call thongs you call “flip-flops.”

Probably because the underwear looks like sandals for your butt.

I always thought it was the opposite; that thong footwear was so named because the strap went up between your toe crack.

TV’s Frink said:

For the record I got Warb’s joke as soon as he posted it and I appreciated it.

As did I.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

I mean, if he was talking about a depiction of Christ coming down off of a crucifix, that still doesn’t make sense, because that suggests the actual Man didn’t actually exist.

I’m not sure sure what you’re referring to by this.

A crucifix is a depiction of a Roman cross with Christ nailed to and hanging from it. I’m saying the real Jesus of Nazareth, be He Christ or not, is not on the cross anymore, and the depictions of Christ on a crucifix are not real.

I’m saying that it makes zero sense no matter how you slice it.

I know what a crucifix is. I was commenting on your statement that implied he was an indisputable historical figure.

It is generally accepted that he actually did exist, and apparently there is historical non-religious evidence to support it, regardless of the credibility of the events surrounding and involving him.

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

I mean, if he was talking about a depiction of Christ coming down off of a crucifix, that still doesn’t make sense, because that suggests the actual Man didn’t actually exist.

I’m not sure sure what you’re referring to by this.

A crucifix is a depiction of a Roman cross with Christ nailed to and hanging from it. I’m saying the real Jesus of Nazareth, be He Christ or not, is not on the cross anymore, and the depictions of Christ on a crucifix are not real.

I’m saying that it makes zero sense no matter how you slice it.

I think you derived the wrong point from that clip.

I did not. I’m just picking it apart.