We need to support this Bill

[tyfromm]

Topless Sunbathing in California?
By Susan Jones
Morning Editor
January 28, 2005

"A bill encouraging women and girls to go topless at California beaches and parks could be introduced this week in the California Legislature," a conservative group is warning.

The Campaign for Children and Families is lobbying against the "drop your top" proposal -- even before the legislation is introduced.

As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, a lawyer's group is pressing for a "topless sunbathing" bill at the request of a female attorney who insists that it is sex discrimination to allow men, but not women, to go topless in public.

"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't," the Los Angeles Times quoted Liana Johnsson as saying. "This is the only thing left that men are legally allowed to do and, for women, they have to register as a sex offender. The real issue is there should be equal protection under the law," Johnsson told the newspaper.

Johnsson and other proponents of the "drop your top" measure say unless topless sunbathing is legalized, women convicted of doing so would fall into the same "sex offender" category as rapists and child molesters under a December court ruling that expanded the scope of Megan's Law.

But the California-based Campaign for Children and Families says that's ridiculous. "The California Attorney General's office has said that topless sunbathing is not considered to be of a lewd nature," and therefore it would not be labeled a sex offense, CCF said.

"This 'drop your top' proposal is so wrong-headed it's embarrassing," said Randy Thomasson, CCF president, in a press release.

"We already have too many sexual assaults in society. If the state encourages women to show their breasts to men and boys at public beaches and parks, inappropriate treatment of women and girls will only worsen."

There are good reasons for modesty laws, Thomasson said -- "to protect the innocence of women and girls and to promote a decent society supportive of children and families."

Thomasson said he would not be surprised to "see this crazy bill introduced by a Democrat politician and supported by many Democrat colleagues" -- and he is urging Californians to "call your state legislators right away to flood them with opposition."

Allowing nude sunbathing at public parks and beaches will ruin family outings and promote a terrible role model for children," he concluded.

[Koller]

Topless Sunbathing is illegal in America?

WTF?!

[wacki]

"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't,"

I really wonder white kind of woman thinks this is a logical arguement.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Topless Sunbathing is illegal in America?

WTF?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to Gay Head, Martha's Vinyard. Lots of naked people there.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't,"

I really wonder white kind of woman thinks this is a logical arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder about the kind of man that doesn't think this is a logical argument.

[tyfromm]

We need to give our support to Topfreedom for Women. (http://www.geocities.com/womens_choice_org/topfreedom.html) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[cardcounter0]

""This 'drop your top' proposal is so wrong-headed it's embarrassing," said Randy Thomasson, CCF president, in a press release. We already have too many sexual assaults in society. If the state encourages women to show their breasts to men and boys at public beaches and parks, inappropriate treatment of women and girls will only worsen.""

So there you have it. Rape and stuff like that is all the women's fault. Randy Thomasson, CCF president, should join the Taliban in dictating how women dress.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder about the kind of man that doesn't think this is a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? I'm not against nude beaches by any means but to say there is no difference between a mans "breast" and a womans is just plain stupid.

[wacki]

"This is the only thing left that men are legally allowed to do and, for women, they have to register as a sex offender. The real issue is there should be equal protection under the law," Johnsson told the newspaper.

Women and men are not equal in this department. Dumb logic.

[Koller]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not against nude beaches by any means

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[wacki]

What is so funny?

[pokerjo22]

She's not saying there's no difference. She's saying that our society requires a woman's breast to be covered, while a man's chest can be exposed. Surely that is just a societal norm? Or am I just being a stupid, illogical woman?

[manpower]

Why are we arguing about whether men's titties are different from women's titties?

The question at hand is topless sunbathing. And as far as I'm concerned, let freedom ring.

[Koller]

You are against the nude beaches. Everybody knows that.

[cardcounter0]

Yes, you are correct. The mere sight of a woman's breast can turn a otherwise God Fearing Good Christian Man into a homicidal rapist sex pervert.

Women's breast are evil and should always be covered, especially if it is at a time that the woman is unclean.

If women were veiled and covered at all times, children would have a much easier time of not being lured into a life of sexual perversion.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are we arguing about whether men's titties are different from women's titties?

The question at hand is topless sunbathing. And as far as I'm concerned, let freedom ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fun topic for you all. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Meanwhile, this is what is happening to our kids:
Teen Prostitution on Rise in California (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145493,00.html)

[wacki]

The real issue is there should be equal protection under the law,"

[ QUOTE ]
She's not saying there's no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, really? Do you know what equal means?

[ QUOTE ]
She's saying that our society requires a woman's breast to be covered, while a man's chest can be exposed. Surely that is just a societal norm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I get it, so you're saying it's society that made the female breast a erogenous zone? More wonderful logic.

If you're going to come up with a reason to have nude beaches atleast come up with a valid logical arguement.

Here's one, how about you are not physically hurting anyone. That is actual logic. Saying a mans "breast" and a womans breast are equal is stupid.

[cardcounter0]

I think that women who cut their hair and wear make up help contribute to this terrible trend with teen age children.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You are against the nude beaches. Everybody knows that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um..... ok.

And no I'm not. Did you not read my comment about Gay Head?

[Koller]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you not read my comment about Gay Head?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell is Gay Head?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you not read my comment about Gay Head?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell is Gay Head?

[/ QUOTE ]

Linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=1632511&Fo rum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main =1632343&Search=true&where=&Name=7066&daterange=&n ewerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev= #Post1632511)

A very beautiful nude beach. Probably one of the prettiest beaches in the US.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, really? Do you know what equal means?

[/ QUOTE ]

So by your logic (bear with me here - I have a hard time following logic - its the extra X chromosome) because a black man and a white man get equal protection under law, black is white?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I get it, so you're saying it's society that made the female breast a erogenous zone? More wonderful logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see so your logic is that any area that is an 'erogenous zone' should be covered? I guess by that token my lips, ear lobes and the back of my neck should all be covered too? Bring on the burkha.

[wacki]

http://www.etheringtonfineart.com/images/davidson/gay_head_cliff.jpg

http://www.openairstudios.net/ae12.jpg

Pics don't do it justice. Notice the red, black, white and green clay.

[tolbiny]

How do you feel about women breast feeding in public?

[David Steele]

N/m

[tyfromm]

We're talking Boobies here /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[_2000Flushes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't,"

I really wonder white kind of woman thinks this is a logical arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder about the kind of man that doesn't think this is a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing illogical about that statement is the insinuation that men and women were once equally expected to wear tops. History has been a matter of suppressing women's rights, not of liberating men's.

I think her argument is clearly valid. But I think it's too idealistic to work. She doesn't take into account the stalwart conditioning with which Americans were raised to find breasts inappropriate. Grossly misguided though that conditioning may be, people can't be reprogrammed overnight.

There is an obvious trend in our culture, however, which will make topless beaches a probability in the centuries to come. And that won't be a lascivious and sinful environment like some suggest. If women started walking around topless right now, then perhaps that would be the case. But as cultural conditioning wanes, girls will be going topless to church if weather permits.

-2kF

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
(bear with me here - I have a hard time following logic - its the extra X chromosome)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think I'm argueing with you just because you are a woman, you are very wrong. Some of the smartest people I know are women. I'm argueing with you because you some of the things you say are really dumb.

[ QUOTE ]
because a black man and a white man get equal protection under law, black is white?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? One more quote to add to the list.

[ QUOTE ]
I see so your logic is that any area that is an 'erogenous zone' should be covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I ever say that? I didn't think so. I used that arguement to say that a womans breast isn't equal to a man's breast. Therefore, in a court of law, you can't make that arguement. There is a huge difference. If women want to go topless I don't care. But in a court of law you can't make the man/women breasts are equal arguement because they aren't equal. It's the poor logic I can't stand.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you feel about women breast feeding in public?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tolbiny, you are a smart man. I hope you can realize that it's the logic I'm attacking not the topless laws. But to answer your question, I don't care about public breast feeding.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing illogical about that statement is the insinuation that men and women were once equally expected to wear tops. History has been a matter of suppressing women's rights, not of liberating men's.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be the only thing wrong with that exact sentence, but there are many flaws in her specific arguement about equal rights for men and womens boobs when it comes to public exposure laws.

[David Steele]

Yeah I know, that forum needs something interesting since the lunatic right took it over.

[pokerjo22]

For some reason (and of course it could be because I'm dumb) I seem to be having a hard time communicating with you.

No-one, including the woman quoted by the OP, is saying that women's breasts are the same as men's breasts. You are presenting a straw man argument.

They are challenging the notion that we should have different laws covering women's breasts compared to men's breasts.

By analogy with racial discrimination, just because white people and black people are different, it doesn't mean we should have a set of laws for one, and a set of laws for the other.

What exactly is it that you don't get about this?

[_2000Flushes]

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason (and of course it could be because I'm dumb) I seem to be having a hard time communicating with you.

No-one, including the woman quoted by the OP, is saying that women's breasts are the same as men's breasts. You are presenting a straw man argument.

They are challenging the notion that we should have different laws covering women's breasts compared to men's breasts.

By analogy with racial discrimination, just because white people and black people are different, it doesn't mean we should have a set of laws for one, and a set of laws for the other.

What exactly is it that you don't get about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki, I think pokerjo is getting to the heart of the problem here. No one is suggesting that men and women are anatomically equal. The argument is that they should have the equal right to be exposed from the waist up--regardless of the differences.

-2kF

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
No-one, including the woman quoted by the OP, is saying that women's breasts are the same as men's breasts. You are presenting a straw man argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not. If you are going to have indecent exposure laws saying errogenous zones should be covered you can't make the claim that the womans breast deserves the same treatment as a mans.

[ QUOTE ]
"This is the only thing left that men are legally allowed to do and, for women, they have to register as a sex offender. The real issue is there should be equal protection under the law,"

[/ QUOTE ]

And yes, she is making that arguement.


[ QUOTE ]
By analogy with racial discrimination, just because white people and black people are different, it doesn't mean we should have a set of laws for one, and a set of laws for the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you are still making this arguement shows that you have still failed to grasp what I am trying to say.

[_2000Flushes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No-one, including the woman quoted by the OP, is saying that women's breasts are the same as men's breasts.

[/ QUOTE ]

you can't make the claim that the womans breast is the same as the mans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki,

Take a few breaths and collect your thoughts. You're digging fast.

-2kF

[wacki]

Reread the post. Thanks for taking my quote out of context btw. Wonderfull tactic. I worded it so it will be more difficult for you to do what you are trying to do.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to have indecent exposure laws saying errogenous zones should be covered you can't make the claim that the womans breast deserves the same treatment as a mans.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the argument is that the indecent exposure laws are wrong. You can't use then use those laws to justify your position.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, she is making that arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you are still making this arguement shows that you have still failed to grasp what I am trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because your counter-argument consisted of 'Yes she is'.

[_2000Flushes]

[ QUOTE ]
Reread the post. Thanks for taking my quote out of context btw. Wonderfull tactic. I worded it so it will be more difficult for you to do what you are trying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't take your quote out of context. You just changed it after I posted it. Get a grip.

I think if we were all actually discussing the bill itself, we would be in relative agreement.

But the arguments you're making are are hot-headed, weak and, most importantly, incoherent. If you're only interested in arguing for the sake of arguing, then fine. But if you really think that you have a point to make, then please reword it. Because what you've written so far hasn't communicated such a point.

-2kF

[fnord_too]

I'm not quite sure where the whole erogenous zone part of the argument came from, but if your argument is predicated on womens breasts being an erogenous zone and men's not, you need to rethink that. (Also, knees are erogenous zones, too, but shorts seem ok to wear.)

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to have indecent exposure laws saying errogenous zones should be covered you can't make the claim that the womans breast deserves the same treatment as a mans.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the argument is that the indecent exposure laws are wrong. You can't use then use those laws to justify your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

If she wants to argue that indecent exposure is wrong, fine let her argue that we should all be allowed to walk around naked because we aren't physically hurting anyone. There is no flaw in that logic. But to say a woman's and a man's breast deserve equal treatment when indecent exposure laws exist is simply flawed logic. The point of indecent exposure laws is to prevent peolpe from exposing areas of their body that are strongly associated with sex. A womans breast is much more strongly associated with sex than a mans. So as long as those laws exist, yes I can make that arguement. To say they deserve equal protection is to claim that a female's breast is equal to a man's breast in the sense it's ability to arouse other people. So by saying they deserve to be treated equally under the indecent exposure laws, she is claiming that they are somewhat equal in their ability to arouse others. And that is just dumb.

Do you understand?

If you want to get rid of those laws and have everyone walk around naked, fine, I don't care. But don't use flawed logic.

Look this is dumb. I hope you are able to understand what I am trying to say, but this conversation is going nowhere fast. I have stuff to do....

[eric5148]

http://premium1.uploadit.org/eric5148//arguing.jpg

[wacki]

lol, Agreed. This is retarded.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
But to say a woman's and a man's breast deserve equal treatment when indecent exposure laws exist is simply flawed logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flawed logic? To disagree with a law is flawed logic? Well I live and learn...

[daryn]

ok so is that your position pokerjo? there should be no indecent exposure laws?

[AncientPC]

Unfortunately most people who sunbathe nude/topless are the ones who probably shouldn't be doing it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately most people who sunbathe nude/topless are the ones who probably shouldn't be doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably???? At Gay Head it's either really old people or naked little children running around with their naked parents. I spent a lot of time on that beach collecting shellfish and I don't remember seeing anyone my age.

[pokerjo22]

For boobs, sure. For one thing it stops an unhealthy fixation with them. For another, it gets rid of tanlines.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
For one thing it stops an unhealthy fixation with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, define unhealthy. Secondly, that's quite an assumption.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
For boobs, sure. For one thing it stops an unhealthy fixation with them. For another, it gets rid of tanlines.

[/ QUOTE ]


only for boobs though? so a dude can't walk around w/ his cock out?

[pokerjo22]

True, just comparing my experiences in Europe and U.S.

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]
For boobs, sure.... it gets rid of tanlines.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the tan lines down near the bush. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[pokerjo22]

Personally it wouldn't bother me, but anyway its the double standard that I take issue with.

[astroglide]

how is the fixation unhealthy? also, i don't think it would stop it.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Personally it wouldn't bother me, but anyway its the double standard that I take issue with.

[/ QUOTE ]


right but it's clearly different, no? women's and men's breasts i mean.

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally it wouldn't bother me, but anyway its the double standard that I take issue with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a problem with double standards too. This isn't directed at you personally, but when a guy flirts with a girl it's sexual harassment. When a girl flirts with a guy it's perfectly fine.

How many women are executed each year on death row? Compare that to the percentages of male prisoners on death row.

Some lady in Houston chopped up a bunch of people with a hand axe and was executed during Bush's term as TX's governor. There was a nationwide outcry to stop the execution because it would be the first female execution since like the 19th century but Bush ignored it, and rightly so.

And most importantly, why the hell do guys have to pick up and put down the toilet seat when sharing a bathroom with a girl? I pick it up before I use it, you put it down when you use it. The work is evenly split and girls even have gravity on their side.

[tolbiny]

I understand that you disagree with the logic of comparing a man's breasts to a woman's- but the only actual physiological difference between a man and a woman's breast is the woman's ability to breast feed.

[tolbiny]

How different are they? Women posses the ability to breast feed, and otherwise they are essentialy the same. There are quite a few studies between cultures with different attitudes towards woman's clothing, and in general they all find that the less restrictive the clothing guidelines withing a society the less of a fixation with them (think national geographic and the tribes women's boobies we used to look at when we were 12). There have also been correlations between fewer sexual crimes and less restrictive cultures in general (though there are probably many variables in these correlations, with clothing only being a part).

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally it wouldn't bother me, but anyway its the double standard that I take issue with.

[/ QUOTE ]

"double" standard implies two different standards for equivalent things. There's no equivalence here and that makes "double standard" impossible. Two different kinds of breasts, two different standards. Why isn't that perfectly reasonable?

(and I can do without the 'poor wittle girlie me' act - that's obnoxious and counterproductive)



eastbay

[daryn]

they're clearly different, not just in that women can breast feed.

[wacki]

Tolbiny, I have tried very hard to let it be known that I don't care if people are allowed to walk in the streets naked. It doesn't bother me. I'm not here to argue my points of view or what would be best for society. I don't care. I was just saying the lawyers logic is severely flawed. You have to think like a lawyer in this situation.

but the only actual physiological difference between a man and a woman's breast is the woman's ability to breast feed.

Only difference is milk? Then why do women spend billions of dollars a year on breast implants. Why are women so concerned about their breast size? Why do rappers sing about Lindsey Lohan's/Angelina Jolie's big titties. Tolbiny, I know you are smarter than that.

Think about the laws and the context in which the laws were written. Think about the intent of the laws applying to public nudity. Now think about the logic the lawyer was using to fight the laws. Forget philosophy, I was just saying the lawyers tactics were horrible. It seems to me that she learned nothing in law school and simply uses a cardboard cut out defense that doesn't really apply.

I wasn't trying to discuss perfect Eutopia. I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out why so few people seem to grasp what I am trying to say. Are my communication skills really that bad? This topic can't be that difficult to understand.

[lastchance]

I think what he's trying to say is that our culture places emphasis on women's boobies as a sexual thing, and not an anatomical thing. We all agree that in our society, there is a sexual emphasis on boobs, but they are arguing, and I think, correctly, that this is just a product of our society right now, not because of any anatomy.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
We all agree that in our society, there is a sexual emphasis on boobs, but they are arguing, and I think, correctly, that this is just a product of our society right now, not because of any anatomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok that is a fair argument but it doesn't change the way things are.

why not argue why we as human beings wear clothes at all? this is becoming stupid.

[lastchance]

We wear clothes cuz it gets cold.

And it's very interesting (at least to me) to try to understand why things are the way they are.

[wacki]

We all agree that in our society, there is a sexual emphasis on boobs,

Of course.

but they are arguing, and I think, correctly, that this is just a product of our society right now, not because of any anatomy.

Umm..... no.

There is a girl I know that has an amazing rack. Everytime I see her I really do go limp and I can't help but stare. She's not even naked. If you are telling me that society told my body to go limp and my mind to go blank and for my eyes to become fixed on her gazongas then you are severly mistaken.

Society says that Jenny Mcarthy is hot but she doesn't do squat for me.

I can't believe I'm argueing about this.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, really? Do you know what equal means?

[/ QUOTE ]

So by your logic (bear with me here - I have a hard time following logic - its the extra X chromosome) because a black man and a white man get equal protection under law, black is white?

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I get it, so you're saying it's society that made the female breast a erogenous zone? More wonderful logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see so your logic is that any area that is an 'erogenous zone' should be covered? I guess by that token my lips, ear lobes and the back of my neck should all be covered too? Bring on the burkha.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow! Plays poker too! (Is that sexist enough?)

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I'm argueing about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

DING!

p.s. and thats the first time I've used that term.

[AlienCorpse]

are some of you guys gay? Seriously bring on the boobies. I've been waiting my whole life for this and I'm not and i repeat not going to let you guys ruin it for me.


BoooOOOOooooobbiiiiess

[_2000Flushes]

[ QUOTE ]
Tolbiny, I know you are smarter than that.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're in no position to say something like this.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out why so few people seem to grasp what I am trying to say. Are my communication skills really that bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I believe you believe you have a valid point, but you haven't presented it well at all.

-2kF

[ethan]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a girl I know that has an amazing rack. Everytime I see her I really do go limp

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I wouldn't think that'd be the problem here.

[Murilo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a girl I know that has an amazing rack. Everytime I see her I really do go limp

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, I wouldn't think that'd be the problem here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising would be a better play.

[tolbiny]

"There is a girl I know that has an amazing rack. Everytime I see her I really do go limp and I can't help but stare. She's not even naked. If you are telling me that society told my body to go limp and my mind to go blank and for my eyes to become fixed on her gazongas then you are severly mistaken.

Society says that Jenny Mcarthy is hot but she doesn't do squat for me"

Your statement (and previous posts) imply that Women don't experience similar sensations when they encounter men they find really attractive.

[Lazymeatball]

Ok, without diving into this myself, I would just like to say I completely understand what Wacki is trying to say as he has presented it using logical arguments.
He actually hasn't even taken a stand on the issue, he's just picking apart the original argument from the lawyer in the story as being bad logic. That's not to say that her intent is wrong, just that she could have presented it better, from a legal standpoint. However, I belive pokerjo and 2kF are interpeting the argument as a pro-indecent exposure laws vs an anti-indecent exposure laws argument and that is where the confusion has come from.