CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Depending on your gender, you are either a pervert wanting to ogle at women's breasts or a showboating exhibitionist with an underlying desire to be a stripper.
Which ever it is, you sound a most undesirable character.
The current fantasy we have created for ourselves is that boobs make everything look great. If women were allowed to go topless, that fantasy would come tumbling down. I mean, it's OK if you have a great pair but the majority don't.
Also, that fantasy empowers women. They expose as much (top, side, bottom) boob/cleavage as they think they need to manipulate men. It's kinda like "Pay-Per-View." They give you the trailer in hopes that you buy the package.
Some women don't want to take a chance by giving you a trailer. Which is why some women wear a burka. They are hoping you buy what they are peddling sight unseen. ;)
Some women don't want to take a chance by giving you a trailer. Which is why some women wear a burka. They are hoping you buy what they are peddling sight unseen. ;)
That is not why they wear a burka, but your point is well taken.
There is a country song, "I Don't Look Good Naked, Anymore" which makes some of your point, but from the other side.
The religion thing is just an excuse to justify the enforcement ;)
True, but I would characterize it as a mechanism (not an excuse) that "encourages" (quotes indicate irony) other functions, and the burka is part of that enforcement mechanism.
The term excuse implies that covering women (or even oppressing them) is a desired end, when I think that there is a goal of societal economic stability (most particularly for women and children) that underlies it all.
I think religions tend to restrict or eliminate valid freedoms, technological and social innovation, and logical thought. However, it is hard to argue against the Functionalist perspective that religions almost universally promote conditions for providing for women's economic needs and raising children to reproductive age.
For more detail on this, watch Karen Straughan's Youtube video essays Fempocalypse and When Female Privilege Backfires. I would start with When Female Privilege Backfires, but both are solid discussions.
The general populace funds federal and state programs, so the state providing for any particular woman's needs means the problem has been shifted from ONE poor sap who realized too late that being involved with her was a mistake, to MILLIONS of people, many of whom knew from the start that schtupping her was a mistake.
Why punish a bunch of people who were smart enough to keep from taking on the obligation. It is better to make her pay for ALL of her own upkeep, and half that of her children's upkeep, and make him pay the other half.
Welfare programs just punish people with good sense, and de-incentivize other people to exercise it. We should not reward stupid and crazy and unpleasant people for reproducing.
My point was not that the state would accept it, but merely that it is counter to the principles of justice to force one person to support another one after the association is dissolved, particularly when the supported party is perfectly capable of supporting himself or herself.
It's unclear which side stands for what in the voting buttons.
In my personal opinion the objection to topless nudity based on gender is simply archaic...
a) As already pointed out, it's a double standard between men and women
b) It often is the basis for objecting to breast feeding, which arguably should be a basic human right between mother and child
c) Society allows people to wear clothes so ridiculously skimpy that nudity isn't really that big a difference. String bikinis which cover just nipples are basically being topless. Wearing a see through bra or blouse, again, is basically being topless. Body paint is somehow considered clothes even though it's just an illusion.
d) The problem isn't actually the nudity itself, it's men believing they can act out terribly and do whatever they want if a temptation visually presents itself. Hey, women used to be not allowed to show ankles, for fear they'd get attacked. Now they can walk around half naked and for the most part they aren't attacked. We need to take that next step of having self control even if a boob is exposed. If a man molests a woman because she is topless then throw the book at him.
Unbelievable how really stupid you Progressives are !
"d) The problem isn't actually the nudity itself, it's men believing they can act out terribly and do whatever they want if a temptation visually presents itself."
Wait a minute here Progressive i thought it was your viewpoint that the transgendered confused could enter the woman's restroom ?
Boston Boy i say again how really confused you people are !
Let's take it one step further out of the mouth of the confused !
"If a man molests a woman because she is topless then throw the book at him."
Really dummy were you concerned about that when Obama wanted transgendered bathrooms ? Again your ignorance is glaringly transparent but your not bright enough to figure it out !
Believe me though, it will become apparent why it is better for women to cover themselves. It will not be possible to avoid unwanted attention. I've known women to try going around topless all the time, and they usually learn something.
GROSS! The fat, disgusting man, I mean. When we have men who won't go into a room with a woman, alone, there is a mindset problem. If a man can walk into a woman's dressing room and grab them by the "li'l kitty", another mindset problem. what would EITHER of these "men" do if they saw a woman walking around bare breasted?? One would possibly "stone her" and call her a whore, have her arrested. The other would follow her to her cell, grab anything he could reach and call a lawyer to keep her quiet. They might then get elected President and "Vice" President and, maybe, be considered "very good people", on both sides ... by Evangelicals, .... maybe. ;-)
I think that laws against toplessness are ridiculous.
While I think requirements for clothes over the ass and genitals are supported by the need for cleanliness in public spaces, restaurant chairs, subway seats, etc., I see no need for people to wear shirts in public.
The moral arguments for them are predicated primarily on the assumption that nudity is sexual, when most of human nudity is for bathing and changing clothes.
The aesthetic arguments for them are based primarily of the assumption that there is some universally acceptable body type, or preference. There is no reason looking at people's noses is better than seeing their nipples, but we seem to have adjusted.
Women should be able to 'walk around topless' as the requirements on clothing as such universally are generally based on arbitrary norms. This becomes quite obvious when one considers dressing a certain way to the beach is not only socially acceptable, but expected--while dressing that same way to Class would get one removed from the situation/school.
I agree, especially when fat ass walrus men walk around shirtless with their jiggling man boobs. If anything they should be covering up, not women just because they have developed mammary glands.
If Humans truly are incapable of sexual self-restraint in the face of half/full nudity, would this not necessarily make them 'Yahoos' straight out of Jonathon's Swift's "Gulliver's Travels"?
I never said people were not capable of self restraint regardless of nudity.
As we look at our welfare roles swollen with unwed mothers, as we look at millions of fatherless children, etc. we know that people are showing no sexual restraint.
Men and woman are designed to be attracted to each other, and become sexually aroused on a regular time frame. Nudity increases this arousal in the same way animals are aroused by scent.
If everyone was nude all the time such as in African Tribes, nudity would not be as big a sexual turn on, but it still plays a role.
Is it sexual when you change your underwear or your shirt?
No.
Is it sexual when you are taking a crap?
No.
Is it sexual when a baby is having his diaper changed?
No!
Is it sexual when a mother breastfeeds her baby?
No!
Is it sexual when a naked four-year-old is running through the sprinklers?
No!
Is it sexual when on a sweltering summer day I sit my fat, sweaty ass on the couch naked so the fan can blow on ALL of me while I eat a popsicle and watch the news?
Oh HELL no!
Sex is sexual. Talking about sex is sometimes sexual.
Nudity is just something we mostly don't, but sometimes think of as sexual for no other reason than sometimes people are naked when they are having sex.
If you think the sexual part of sex is the nudity.........WOW!
Why are you wasting our time talking about how we think of ourselves when naked?
Not just ourselves, other people, too. The point is that most nudity has NOTHING to do with sex. It is the prohibition of public nudity that artificially designates it as erotic. When that prohibition is lifted, after a VERY short time of acclimatizing to that, it stops being a turn-on. When that prohibition is ignored, the eroticism dissipates.
In parts of the world where folks go topless or are naked, the guys are not walking around with boners all the time. People realize they are just boobs, etc.. Go look at an old National Geographic magazine. You will see.
In your Biblical terms, it is what God meant for us to be, naked and untethered by it, as if nobody told us we are naked.
Had you ever been in a nudist situation, you would realize that the nudity is not the actual turn-on, it is the implication of opportunity/likelihood of sex, hence your reaction to your wife. (If I am wrong in my assumption that you have not been in such a situation, forgive me.)
Orgies demonstrate the same exact truth, but from the other angle.
Story Time
I was in Eugene, OR for a run of Grateful Dead shows in the 90's. The night before the first show started, a bunch of us went up to nearby Cougar Hot Springs. We hiked in during a thunderstorm for a couple miles to the natural hot springs. We selected one of the pools, undressed and got into the water.
There were already many Dead Heads there, (beads, long hair, beards, dreadlocks, etc.) so the folks at the springs totaled about 50 or 60 people.
We were all nude in the hot springs. There was nothing sexual about it, despite many of the women were beautiful and voluptuous. It was just a bunch of animals hanging out in our natural state, being friendly in the exact same way as when you meet new neighbors.
(Because the rocks and logs were wet and slick, as we walked with our centers of gravity kept low in order to keep balanced on the slippery surfaces. When the lightning flashed we saw a bunch of hairy naked people standing or walking a little hunched over with bent knees, kind of like cavemen. It was downright picturesque.)
If you think nudity is inherently sexually attractive, and it is all that requires you to be attracted to a female, then I assume that when you see a naked baby picture, or a naked little girl running through a sprinkler, that you are sexually aroused. Would you get turned on by changing a baby's diaper, or giving you daughter a bath?
What do you think is going on with doctors, for example male gynegologists?
"While I think requirements for clothes over the ass and genitals are supported by the need for cleanliness in public spaces, restaurant chairs, subway seats, etc., I see no need for people to wear shirts in public."
Would you be OK with people wearing completely transparent underwear that puts their genitals on full display?
I guess I should have mentioned that it's only okay to go out in public nude when not "exposing one's genitals with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of oneself or another person."
Every year approximately 10,000 people ride naked through downtown Portland.