Nipple equality: Women could go topless in Berkeley under new proposal

[EasterJoy]

My advice, buy stock in the public utilities that service the Berkeley area. The population is gonna boom!

You seem to have this idea that they don’t know what artificial birth control is in Berkeley, or that they are suffering some shortage of sexually provocative situations. If the women are allowed to go topless, the number who do will not make a difference in the birth rate there. Honestly, there is so much weirdness there, I’m not sure the long-time residents would even notice. It is a very strange place.

Now, if you hear that they’re going to make it legal to go topless in Palo Alto, on the other hand…
(I’m kidding. I’m kidding…)

Having accidentally gone to a nude beach in Spain. People, you truly look better with something on. Much better. Extraordinarily better.

I wish we had a “like” button for posts like this.

 

[DaveBj]

Having accidentally gone to a nude beach in Spain. People, you truly look better with something on. Much better. Extraordinarily better.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

You seem to assuming a lot here that is very troubling to me. You seem to be assuming, whether intentionally or not, that “modesty” (at least in the way you define it) ought to play a role in establishing laws that others who might not share your definition should have to obey. You seem to be assuming that “civilized societies” (again as you define them) generally adhere to the version of modesty you would enforce, and in the process severely circumscribe what it means to be civilized. You seem to assume that conventions of dress are the same as sumptuary laws. You seem to assume that biological diversity should dictate clothing. Finally, you seem to assume that “how it’s done” is a sufficient justification for how it ought to be done.

In other words, you’ve built an argument about what should or should not be allowed society on the flawed premises of personal belief.

Those assumptions are in your mind, not in mine.

Let’s start with your last sentence. No, it’s not merely “personal belief”, it’s a traditional custom of decorum, as you yourself acknowledged earlier. Your implication that this has to do with personal preference couldn’t be more wrong. I’m a heterosexual male. I have never found the sight of a naked female breast to be in the least unpleasant. I’m 59, so I also can trust myself not to gawk or get overly excited at such a sight. I’m a little beyond that, I’m happy to say. So this has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

Now to return to the beginning of your post. As you’ve done before, you work in a great deal of moral and cultural relativism (“modesty… at least in the way you define it”; “civilized societies, again as you define them”). So I don’t know if you are attacking the very notions of “modesty” and “civilized” (some on the secular left certainly do attack those notions) or simply my applications of them. If the latter, you need to explain what your definitions of “modesty” and “civilization” are. But I will be glad to defend my notions of them. A reasonable modesty in dress for both genders has always been embraced by Christians, in every societal context. It goes back to the account of the Fall in the Jewish Scriptures; the need to wear clothing is presented as the first recognition of humans that they were no longer in a state of innocence. It’s also a recognition that humans differ qualitatively from nonhuman animals. Conversely, a disregard for clothing is a consistent sign of a naive and unChristian primitivism. Although you self-identify as Catholic, and you adopt the name “Jesucated”, your attitude here smacks much more of Rousseau than Jesus. What Christian precedents do you cite for your attitude towards Modesty?

I defend differing standards of dress for men and women (your ludicrously overbroad euphemism was “biological diversity”) on the fact that men’s and women’s bodies are significantly different.

What bothers me most is the apparent seriousness with which you and the others in this cause take it. Right now, to keep the focus just on women, there are women and girls in this world, and in the US, facing sexual slavery, sexual and other physical abuse, and in other countries, forced marriage, legalized rape, genital mutilation, severe corporal punishment for minor infractions, or for even death including death by burning alive for things such as not having a “sufficient” dowry, and THIS is what you and other American feminists think is a cause worthy to go to battle for??? The “right” not to wear a top in public??? I find that to be a colossally morally obtuse attitude, evidencing a ghastly lack of a sense of proportion, born most likely out of a cultural elitism and affluence.

 

[Gilly_flower]

I think it is exactly the reverse - too trivial to worry about…

 

[Seamus_L]

So what is Berkeley more likely to do, allow women to go topless in public, or allow right wing conservatives to speak on campus ?

 

[jesucated]

Those assumptions are in your mind, not in mine.

Let’s start with your last sentence. No, it’s not merely “personal belief”, it’s a traditional custom of decorum, as you yourself acknowledged earlier. Your implication that this has to do with personal preference couldn’t be more wrong. I’m a heterosexual male. I have never found the sight of a naked female breast to be in the least unpleasant. I’m 59, so I also can trust myself not to gawk or get overly excited at such a sight. I’m a little beyond that, I’m happy to say. So this has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

Now to return to the beginning of your post. As you’ve done before, you work in a great deal of moral and cultural relativism (“modesty… at least in the way you define it”; “civilized societies, again as you define them”). So I don’t know if you are attacking the very notions of “modesty” and “civilized” (some on the secular left certainly do attack those notions) or simply my applications of them. If the latter, you need to explain what your definitions of “modesty” and “civilization” are. But I will be glad to defend my notions of them. A reasonable modesty in dress for both genders has always been embraced by Christians, in every societal context. It goes back to the account of the Fall in the Jewish Scriptures; the need to wear clothing is presented as the first recognition of humans that they were no longer in a state of innocence. It’s also a recognition that humans differ qualitatively from nonhuman animals. Conversely, a disregard for clothing is a consistent sign of a naive and unChristian primitivism. Although you self-identify as Catholic, and you adopt the name “Jesucated”, your attitude here smacks much more of Rousseau than Jesus. What Christian precedents do you cite for your attitude towards Modesty?

I defend differing standards of dress for men and women (your ludicrously overbroad euphemism was “biological diversity”) on the fact that men’s and women’s bodies are significantly different.

What bothers me most is the apparent seriousness with which you and the others in this cause take it. Right now, to keep the focus just on women, there are women and girls in this world, and in the US, facing sexual slavery, sexual and other physical abuse, and in other countries, forced marriage, legalized rape, genital mutilation, severe corporal punishment for minor infractions, or for even death including death by burning alive for things such as not having a “sufficient” dowry, and THIS is what you and other American feminists think is a cause worthy to go to battle for??? The “right” not to wear a top in public??? I find that to be a colossally morally obtuse attitude, evidencing a ghastly lack of a sense of proportion, born most likely out of a cultural elitism and affluence.

“native and unChristian primitivism”? Yikes.

This line, and I think it’s indicative of your larger post, smacks of meanness, arrogance, and an imperialistic and chauvinistic mindset. I’d offer a counter, but evidence suggests you are so certain of your own ability to dictate behavior and belief to the world that it would make little difference. That said feel free to PM me if you would like a longer response.

Side note, I really think you need to go back and read Rousseau before using him again. You might also want to check out Montaigne and his take on how you are tossing around words like modesty and civilized.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

“native and unChristian primitivism”? Yikes.

This line, and I think it’s indicative of your larger post, smacks of meanness, arrogance, and an imperialistic and chauvinistic mindset. I’d offer a counter, but evidence suggests you are so certain of your own ability to dictate behavior and belief to the world that it would make little difference. That said feel free to PM me if you would like a longer response.

Side note, I really think you need to go back and read Rousseau before using him again. You might also want to check out Montaigne and his take on how you are tossing around words like modesty and civilized.

So to call something naive, or unChristian or primitivistic is inherently “mean”, “arrogant”, “imperialistic” and “chauvinistic”. I’m pretty sure you’ve labeled sentiments on this forum as “unchristian” or a semantic equivalent. If you think I’m being unjust, then please describe how, instead of responding with a bunch of derogatory adjectives and nothing else. And if a longer response would wasted on me here, why invite me to PM you? But if you really do have a longer response to give, feel free to PM me with it, and I will read it and respond to it.

 

[Memaw]

That’s a little puritanical if you ask me… I think it’s perfectly acceptable to look sexy in public. That doesnt mean you’re immodest either. To me it shows confidence. Thats the girl I’m after!! Imagine if obesity wasn’t a problem today. Every 20 something girl would be getting looks. Us conservative Catholics need to lighten up a bit. Show everyone else we’re here to enjoy life, not be prudes

Oh really, I think you need to take that up with God. Didn’t HE clothe Adam and Eve after they sinned and realized they were naked. They even hid from Him.! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

[ught to play a role in establishing laws that others who might not share your definition should have to obey. You seem to be assuming that “civilized societies” (again as you define them) generally adhere to the version of modesty you would enforce, and in the process severely circumscribe what it means to be civilized. You seem to assume that conventions of dress are the same as sumptuary laws. You seem to assume that biological diversity should dictate clothing. Finally, you seem to assume that “how it’s done” is a sufficient justification for how it ought to be done.

In other words, you’ve built an argument about what should or should not be allowed society on the flawed premises of personal belief.
[/QUOTE]

You need to study the Catholic Church’s teaching on Modesty and true human sexuality. God is the author of life and He gave us the Church to guide us on our path to hopefully Heaven. Following HIS Will for the WHOLE Human race is not " flawed premises." God Bless, Memaw

 

[Sarcelle]

Those assumptions are in your mind, not in mine.

Let’s start with your last sentence. No, it’s not merely “personal belief”, it’s a traditional custom of decorum, as you yourself acknowledged earlier. Your implication that this has to do with personal preference couldn’t be more wrong. I’m a heterosexual male. I have never found the sight of a naked female breast to be in the least unpleasant. I’m 59, so I also can trust myself not to gawk or get overly excited at such a sight. I’m a little beyond that, I’m happy to say. So this has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

Now to return to the beginning of your post. As you’ve done before, you work in a great deal of moral and cultural relativism (“modesty… at least in the way you define it”; “civilized societies, again as you define them”). So I don’t know if you are attacking the very notions of “modesty” and “civilized” (some on the secular left certainly do attack those notions) or simply my applications of them. If the latter, you need to explain what your definitions of “modesty” and “civilization” are. But I will be glad to defend my notions of them. A reasonable modesty in dress for both genders has always been embraced by Christians, in every societal context. It goes back to the account of the Fall in the Jewish Scriptures; the need to wear clothing is presented as the first recognition of humans that they were no longer in a state of innocence. It’s also a recognition that humans differ qualitatively from nonhuman animals. Conversely, a disregard for clothing is a consistent sign of a naive and unChristian primitivism. Although you self-identify as Catholic, and you adopt the name “Jesucated”, your attitude here smacks much more of Rousseau than Jesus. What Christian precedents do you cite for your attitude towards Modesty?

I defend differing standards of dress for men and women (your ludicrously overbroad euphemism was “biological diversity”) on the fact that men’s and women’s bodies are significantly different.

What bothers me most is the apparent seriousness with which you and the others in this cause take it. Right now, to keep the focus just on women, there are women and girls in this world, and in the US, facing sexual slavery, sexual and other physical abuse, and in other countries, forced marriage, legalized rape, genital mutilation, severe corporal punishment for minor infractions, or for even death including death by burning alive for things such as not having a “sufficient” dowry, and THIS is what you and other American feminists think is a cause worthy to go to battle for??? The “right” not to wear a top in public??? I find that to be a colossally morally obtuse attitude, evidencing a ghastly lack of a sense of proportion, born most likely out of a cultural elitism and affluence.

 

[Memaw]

How very charitable of you.

And way off base!! Why do they dress like that then when they know they are overexposing themselves? With all the publicity about it, they can’t help but know.
Just look at how low our Society has fallen in the last few decades, almost anything goes and shame on you if you don’t follow. Catholics need to study their Catholic Faith before defending sin. God Bless, Memaw

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Works for me. I’ve seen men with bigger boobs that some women.

There was a series of post by various people kind of trolling Twitter by posting a lot of pictures of man boobs. It wasn’t clear which boobs violated policy and which ones did not.

Side note, if a person was born with a penis and now has large breast and identifies as a woman than is the sight of such a person’s breast offensive? Not really looking for an answer to that. Just find it to be an interesting question.

 

[vz71]

Side note, if a person was born with a penis and now has large breast and identifies as a woman than is the sight of such a person’s breast offensive? Not really looking for an answer to that. Just find it to be an interesting question.

Just one? Would seem odd to me that if this person was going to commit to self mutilation they would only go half way.

nevertheless, I believe I would find offense in someone not being properly clothed, no matter what they think they are.

 

[Inisfallen]

I can’t get that worked up about this.

It’s been legal for ages here in New York City. Nobody does it, except for a few women in body paint in Times Square trying to hustle money from the tourists.

I think there’s a beach out in Rockaway or Jamaica Bay or somewhere where people are permitted to go naked.

Otherwise, it just doesn’t happen.

In other words, a tempest in a teapot.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I can’t get that worked up about this.

It’s been legal for ages here in New York City. Nobody does it, except for a few women in body paint in Times Square trying to hustle money from the tourists.

I think there’s a beach out in Rockaway or Jamaica Bay or somewhere where people are permitted to go naked.

Otherwise, it just doesn’t happen.

In other words, a tempest in a teapot.

Yep. This is something the white elitist SJWs get worked up over. The working class women and women in minority and immigrant communities face much more pressing issues.

 

[Inisfallen]

Yep. This is something the white elitist SJWs get worked up over. The working class women and women in minority and immigrant communities face much more pressing issues.

Here in New York, where you’d probably say there are lots of white elitist SJWs (and probably say that I’m one of them), *nobody *gets worked up over it.

 

[DaveBj]

There was a series of post by various people kind of trolling Twitter by posting a lot of pictures of man boobs. It wasn’t clear which boobs violated policy and which ones did not.

Side note, if a person was born with a penis and now has large breast and identifies as a woman than is the sight of such a person’s breast offensive? Not really looking for an answer to that. Just find it to be an interesting question.

The flip side is also an interesting question – on Facebook I’ve seen topless photos of women post double mastectomy. Apparently, it’s perfectly fine for a woman to be topless, if there are no boobs involved. I don’t want to offend anyone with my opinion, but I’m happiest when everyone is wearing a shirt. Shirts have the added benefit of reducing the chances of skin cancer

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The flip side is also an interesting question – on Facebook I’ve seen topless photos of women post double mastectomy. Apparently, it’s perfectly fine for a woman to be topless, if there are no boobs involved.

Facebook had censored those at first. They got negative PR and then left it alone. I saw only one of the pictures posted and found the scars to be rather disturbing looking. Part of the stated goal that I encountered for those photographs was that the intent was to normalize it since it has happened to a lot of women. I think those involved are well intentioned, but I remain uninterested in seeing it.There was also some other brief campaign of women posting pictures of their used menstrual cups on social media to try to normalize those and some photograph series of women sleeping while “that time of the month” is showing through their clothing. Well intentioned or not I would rather not see it.

With respect to the original story I talked about it with my girlfriend. She would prefer that all nipples be covered Irrespective of ones sex.

 

[Beryllos]

 

[DaveBj]

Facebook had censored those at first. They got negative PR and then left it alone. I saw only one of the pictures posted and found the scars to be rather disturbing looking. Part of the stated goal that I encountered for those photographs was that the intent was to normalize it since it has happened to a lot of women.** I think those involved are well intentioned, but I remain uninterested in seeing it**.There was also some other brief campaign of women posting pictures of their used menstrual cups on social media to try to normalize those and some photograph series of women sleeping while “that time of the month” is showing through their clothing. Well intentioned or not I would rather not see it.

With respect to the original story I talked about it with my girlfriend. She would prefer that all nipples be covered Irrespective of ones sex.

and