If I get the privilege to see wobbly mantits... why not also breasts that are not created by obesety?

B@#$&es just want attention.
That they're making a big deal over their own breasts is proof of that.

I have no problem with it, though I do find it very funny that the group's (GoTopless) spiritual leader wrote a book on intelligent design, by aliens that he spoke with.

Lizardon:
Sure I have no issue with women not wearing a top in places where men don't. Get rid of the stigma of nakedness and all that. I'm not even sure if it is illegal here is Australia anyway.

You'll find that it depends on the area here in Aus.
EG:
Beach? Cool. Nobody will care.

Jogging near a busy road?
The police might want to talk to you about causing more accidents in 10 minutes than there is in the rest of the year.

Which brings me to my point: I say go for it, but maybe keep them covered near roads.

Jordi:
In this case, saying "people need to cover their reproductive organs" just happens to mean that women need to cover more of their bodies than men.

No, it doesn't. Breasts aren't reproductive organs.

spartan231490:
Female breasts are much more sexual than male "breasts," so much so that you can't just say that if men can do it women can do it.

Why does being "more sexual" make a difference? Certain types of clothing are considered more sexual than others, but they are still legal. Art museums are filled with paintings and statues of naked men and women, but that's perfectly acceptable.

Sure, go 'head. I've got no problems if people want to go shirtless if they want.

They might have to get used to being stared at more though, in the same way that a guy with chiseled abs would have to get used to that.

But still, men can go shirtless and not too many of them take advantage of that outside of the beach or the pool, I'm sure the situation would be the same for women.

I think guys and girls should both be clothed.
Im going to run an anti nipples campaign.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo................my eyes.....

Even better, lets go all naked

Well actually no. I think it is stupid for both genders

I'm on the fence about his issue. Sure, I would like nothing more than women to be able to express themselves freely in public and walk around topless, but I suspect that the excessive exposure to bare breasts in public might cause some havoc.

It's going to be very difficult to keep a conversation or just be around a woman when her breasts are just hanging out without any clothing or support. At least went they are covered, you don't feel an awkwardness between the two and only those with dirty minds need to make an effort to see breasts.

But if women want the right to be treated equally, power to the them. I'm just pointing out that if this comes to fruition, it will be some time before men can accept this as the norm without looking like a bunch of perverts.

I'm pretty sure if this did happen in the U.S. it would be pretty much the same as it is in Europe. By which I mean, no one would really bother unless they were at the beach. I don't think I've ever seen any topless women walking around towns or anything.

I would want to but not until men stop excessively sexualizing them. When guys are topless you don't see girls running around excitedly screaming MANTITS! (or maybe I just need to get out more.)

You know what? Fuck it, yeah. If men want to complain about being distracted by constant raging erections, then I'd assume they agree with Islamic nations' obsession with getting women to cover up, and let's see how that goes.

Just as long as women don't complain about men staring at their breasts because...well, duh, of course they're going to do it. Most heterosexual men like the damn funbags, and campaigning for them not to have a cheeky glance at them is like telling someone to not push the red button or something will explode. That desensitization thing won't work, because it's not as if men have suddenly stopped being aroused by women's thighs now that miniskirts are widespread and popular.

By the way, I'm just talking about women being allowed to bare their breasts at the beach. In public? No way. I don't mean to sound prudish, but many women show enough of their body in town and such to try and campaign to show even more that they might as well have just led a policeman on a chase yelling at the top of their lungs, "I regret nothing!" But the same should go for men that feel the need to ever so proudly bear their hairy chests and/or man-boobs for all the world to see.

Well yeah of course they should be allowed. It being illegal implies 2 things.

1.)Women have less freedom with their bodies than men.

2.)Women's bodies are obscene.

BrassButtons:

spartan231490:
Female breasts are much more sexual than male "breasts," so much so that you can't just say that if men can do it women can do it.

Why does being "more sexual" make a difference? Certain types of clothing are considered more sexual than others, but they are still legal. Art museums are filled with paintings and statues of naked men and women, but that's perfectly acceptable.

If anything that's an even more sexist argument. Women can't do it because of how men react to breasts. It's on men to make the effort not to be pervs (I say this as a card carrying member of the perv club) not for women to make concessions because of our issues.

It's pretty fine in Europe actually. Sure you get a few people being offended, but it's widely accepted on nude beaches, and designated nude areas.

It sounds a pretty good idea to let women go topless in public. But the reality is far... far worse... We're talking proper ankle swingers here.

BrassButtons:

Jordi:
In this case, saying "people need to cover their reproductive organs" just happens to mean that women need to cover more of their bodies than men.

No, it doesn't. Breasts aren't reproductive organs.

spartan231490:
Female breasts are much more sexual than male "breasts," so much so that you can't just say that if men can do it women can do it.

Why does being "more sexual" make a difference? Certain types of clothing are considered more sexual than others, but they are still legal. Art museums are filled with paintings and statues of naked men and women, but that's perfectly acceptable.

By that logic, nudity in public should be legal. If it's not appropriate for the penis and the vagina to be shown in public, than sexual context obviously does matter, and as I said female breasts are more sexual than male "breasts," so you can't just say that if men can go topless so can women.

It's actually legal where I live (Ontario, Canada) and yet no one does it.

Personally I don't really care either way but I can't help but feel it's one of those laws/rights that people fight for purely on principle. If it was passed, you wouldn't all of a sudden start seeing bare breasts on every street no matter how hot it was.

Women should be allowed to go topless as soon as us men are allowed to go without a shirt in public (except for old ladies. Granny breasts are nasty :X).

Meh.
I can't really care about this one way or the other.
Because of our culture breasts are ridiculously sexualised, and I don't see that changing any time soon. So even if the law did change I doubt anyone would utilise it until we as a society can grow up a bit and perhaps realise that not every breast needs to be sexualised.
If I wanna walk around with no shirt on I just do it at home with the curtains closed.

mad825:

I doubt so very much.

Worse case scenario: sexual harassment crimes go up, teenagers will carry barge-poles when around their mothers, male teenagers will walk like apes and carry handkerchiefs to wipe off...drool.

Anyway, for the reason that I'm against this. If girls topless then I wouldn't be able to on the account of my little friend being tucked-in.

Dethenger:

I remember reading once that breasts were like ass 2.0; human women developed them as we started walking on two legs as a way to present themselves sexually when they weren't walking on all fours. Whether or not that theory is 100% accurate, the fact of the matter is that (most) men are attracted to breasts. They are sexual. I'm saying this not because I don't think women should be allowed to go topless (go for it, it's none of my fuckin' business). Rather, it's because I don't buy the "if men can do it so can women" thing, as it's not the same situation for each. If we're going to demand equality strictly under those kinds of terms, women's bathrooms should be equipped with urinals.
Now, I fully support this: Bottom line, as I said, it's none of my fuckin' business. I have my own reasons for wearing clothes, but if you think as this man does, more power to ya. If we as a culture were to shift our sexual taboos away from any body parts at all related to sex (as we have been, really: the showing of thighs, bellies, even faces were once, and in some places still are, considered immodest) to only those directly involved, and perhaps even to eliminate sexual taboos entirely, I'm totally fine with it.

Eventually, due to being a common enough occurrence, the sight of boobs would become as erotic as seeing arms. Now, there's people with a fetish for that, but not everyone gets off on it. Keep in mind, this wouldn't happen immediately, and will take time.
Also, that being topless would just be an option.

Yes! It's how the Romans did it (I think?)!

I'm a man. Of bloody course I'm going to support this!

shadyh8er:
Yes! It's how the Romans did it (I think?)!

You might be thinking of the Ancient Greeks. A big part of their robes' designs were unisex and as a result only covered one breast and left the other... kind of hanging out, I guess?

NO, men shouldn't either.
I don't wanna see your fat or saggy, exercised/unexercised, toned or untoned torso.
Put a shirt on, or better yet let's just all wear flight-suits!!

I don't really have an opinion either way, but I feel I should point out that 'equality' doesn't mean 'everybody can do the exact same thing regardless of anything'. Men can't use women's bathrooms and vice-versa, and that's completely correct. It's a fact (regardless of whether it's a pleasant one) that women's breasts are more sexualised than men's chests, and it's a fact that needs to be considered before angrily ripping off your bra at the supermarket.

Yopaz:

michael87cn:
This should be plainly obvious... the reason why women need to cover their breasts is they have a very powerful sexually stimulating effect in the male brain... covering them up mostly blocks this stimulative impulse. I can't say that the bare chest of a man doesn't stimulate sexual drive in a woman either, but I do know the drive can't be as strong. Breasts are almost like genitalia on the chest. <- once again should be very obvious. . .

There's a reason why women 'naturally' feel embarassed with no shirt on, and men don't. Your brain is telling you "look dummy, you're kind of heavily exposed here!".

There are indeed reasons why our social structure is the way it is, and its not always because men are 'bastards' that control everything. . .

Personally though, if you want to walk around nude go ahead, but that's a pretty shameful thing to do. Especially at a public place where there will be children...

Edit: and of course the first post I see above me is full of bologna.

There's nothing natural about feeling embarrassed. Nor is there anything natural about being attracted to boobs. Look at the different tribes around the world, they go topless and they have managed. Do not use sociology to explain biology.

I have nothing to back this up, it's just something I saw in a video in high school once. It said something along the lines that in other species of primates, the butt is the sexual attraction for males and that because other primates aren't bipedal that Males haves easy sight of it (or something like that, I forget the details).

Human females are unique among primates (and all mammals I believe) in that they have breasts that are always enlarged, not just when nursing. The reasoning the video gave for this was that as humans became bipedal, the breasts grew to resemble the butt as much as possible so that males could have the same sexual attraction as if we weren't bipedal. So if that's the case, then there might be some biological sense to having a sexual attraction to breasts.

Not that this makes any difference in how I feel; women should have the same topless rights as men. It's just some interesting food for thought.

spartan231490:

By that logic, nudity in public should be legal.

I agree.

If it's not appropriate for the penis and the vagina to be shown in public, than sexual context obviously does matter

But why does it matter? And, more importantly, should it matter?

BrassButtons:

Jordi:
In this case, saying "people need to cover their reproductive organs" just happens to mean that women need to cover more of their bodies than men.

No, it doesn't. Breasts aren't reproductive organs.

I was afraid someone might say that, because apparently there are somewhat conflicting definitions (although it seems that in general, you're right). If "reproductive organs" doesn't work, we can just change it to "body parts that are closely associated with sexuality by the vast majority of people". It all depends on what the law is trying to accomplish to begin with. My point is that you can have a law that applies equally to all people, while having more varied consequences between people because of their differences.

BrassButtons:

spartan231490:
Female breasts are much more sexual than male "breasts," so much so that you can't just say that if men can do it women can do it.

Why does being "more sexual" make a difference? Certain types of clothing are considered more sexual than others, but they are still legal. Art museums are filled with paintings and statues of naked men and women, but that's perfectly acceptable.

Basically it's up to society where to draw the line. It has always been that way. Breasts, like genitalia and asses are heavily associated with sexuality and are therefor deemed indecent to expose in most circumstances. At least, that seems to be the reasoning. Anyway, society drew the line somewhere, so that means that it matters when things are more or less sexual. Statues and paintings are way less lifelike than actual live people, and you cannot generally have sex with them, so they score way lower on this scale and are more often allowed (although I don't think you would be allowed to put explicit, life like paintings or statues up wherever you want).

I would prefer everyone unable to go topless than everyone able to. Who wants to see topless people, regardless of gender?

I feel like not many women would go topless if it were allowed. I'm not a woman, so take that with a grain of salt.

And I get the feeling sex crimes could rise as a result.

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

I don't imagine this ending well.

I'd vote no, I mean, sometimes these sort of laws are in there for a reason. I mean, let's say they do go topless and they attract the attention of some... Unwanted people; if those people begin to harass a woman and it goes to the courtroom, it'll be that "just because we wear a certain piece of clothing doesn't mean we deserve to be harassed" debacle all over again... Except this time the other side's points actually make some sense.

I'd hate to sound like a bigot or anything here, I honestly don't believe anyone "deserves" to be sexually harassed, yet if a woman goes out in public topless and gets harassed or inappropriately touched for it, then in all honesty they should've expected that beforehand.