Attack of the Evil Nudists

[Xortberg]

Xort your whole example is unfair for women. Women have breasts this makes them top heavy and also makes them have more flesh over their chest gathering more internal heat, even if you both had shirts off stallions generaly have an adventage due to physical build . and what about females just wearing a sports bra? their are many garmets they can wear that release quite a bit of heat with out having to go nude. besides i have heard it harder for women to run run with out a bra .

Le sigh. It's kind of amazing how you managed to completely miss my point. I was responding to your claim that a stallion or mare going around shirtless where ponies can see them are sluts, with an example of where it was sometimes almost required that I go shirtless. I wasn't saying anything about whether women should be able to go shirtless or not, but was contesting the point that you've contradicted yourself with your whole beach speech.

but what will happen when i go to take the SAT and the filly next to me is nude....i can asure you it will make it much harder for me to focus or do well. infact just in school work in general i would do poorer. i would feel sexual implulses often and who wants a wingboner the whole day?

Already covered that, bro. Yes, if we abolished the rule saying we have to wear clothes immediately, this generation and likely several after us would still feel the effects of this taboo we have.

Besides many adolestents would act upon these sexual impolses and that might lead to teenage pregnancy which is a bad thing.

Girls go to school in extremely provocative clothing. Male and female adolescents both are raging hormonal battlefields. We already act on sexual impulses, for the most part. Why are we so obsessed with sex? Because it, and everything we relate to it, is so taboo that our teenage minds automatically rebel against the rules and want to embrace it. Anyway, as Dras said, why should a filly be held responsible for a stallion's actions? Why are girls taught how to not get raped, while guys aren't taught they shouldn't rape? Ridiculous double standard, that.

Remeber what happened when adam and eve ate the apple and became intelligent? the became more then animals and they saw that they were nude and were ashamed. they then made clothes and thats aperently why you and i where then now.

That's why I was reluctant to make a Bible reference. I was using it as a reference for my argument, while you're using it as an argument. Why did their intelligence make them ashamed of their bodies? Why is it so wrong to be naked? You haven't explained that at all, just said "The Bible says this so that's why." Doesn't work that way.

I disagree that it will eventualy be normal. as a child my sisters never wore clothes around the house, so from a very young age i was quite formiler with what the oppsite sex was like.

And were you ever turned into a raging boob-and-poon missile because of your repeated exposure to a filly's naughty bits? No? Congratulations, you've just dug yourself a nice little hole.

however sexuality and sexual development still remaned to me as highly personal things that could some one might be quite embarrsed about. i think it will remain like this for the entirety of pony civilization. after all dras may be all for ya lets all go nude! but what about for thoase who might be ashamed or nervous about their bodies.

News flash: some of those ponies who are nervous about showing their bodies - Dras included, mind you, if you'd read her posts you'd know that - are still basically agreeing with us. They are nervous and shy about it, but they recognize that there's nothing wrong about it.

EDIT: And just for the record, I'd have trouble going out and exposing myself too, even if it was legal. Some of it's a comfort issue, since I like my clothes, but some of it is also because of all the ingrained rules that I've lived by my entire life. Doesn't mean I feel it should stay that way.

if ponies are so willing to let their sexuality loose why can't i go up to any mare and simply ask how many times they have had sex or what kind the prefer.

You can. Depending on the mare, and how comfortable she is with her sexuality, you'll either get a straight answer, get slapped, or various other reactions. But that's not the point we've been trying to make. The naked body is only so strongly associated with sexuality because it's been ingrained in our minds from a young age. Back to your naked sisters point, when you saw your sisters running around without clothes did you look at them sexually? No? Why's that? BECAUSE A NAKED BODY ISN'T INHERENTLY SEXY. Sex is inherently sexy. The pony body is not. It's only "sexy" because we associate nakedness with sex. Little kids don't, so they don't give a shit about nakedness. If you were to see your sisters naked now, would you be as okay with is as you were when you were growing up? I doubt it, and the reason is probably because you've come to associate nakedness as sex when in reality it has nothing to do with sex outside of what we make it have to do with it.

infact a certin member here had openly listed their a sexual fantasy of theirs and dras was quick to tell the pony it was unproper. so why is nudity proper? the pony body is a highly personal thing. i don't go around telling ponies how far through pubirty i am and i would be very uncomfortable with them knowing that.

A sexual fantasy is improper because IT IS SEXUAL. You know, completely and irrevocably tied to SEX. Nudity is not. This is simple. Nudity is only tied to sex because of our silly sensibilities saying it is.

i define nudity as the visiblity of organs that a gender develops through out puberty. stallions don't devlop breasts, mare do.

Yeah, you might want to make sure your facts are right before spouting off nonsense.

"Often, the fat pads of the male breast tissue and the male nipples will develop during puberty;"

So yeah, a male's breasts see development throughout puberty. Sorry, that point goes out the window.

Well you kinda are a slut, but that's beside the point.

Oh shut up, you.

[Thu'um]

i am the same way in some things, i had arm pit hair at 12, thats was emabarsing at the time. but for thoase who want to dress excpecialy revealing sosciaty is seeming to work towards that with butty shorts and sluts and all. however, i am not condeming these things. but there are places where these things are inapropriate.

[ballisticwaffles]

inapropriateness is something that, if we abolish the taboo, will fade through generations.

Also, Whats a butty short? i want one.

["User"]

Damn, there sure is a lot of talk about SEX and NUDITY in this topic!

Well, one can make the rule, but the question is: Are women going to follow it? Are enough women willing to go topless on allowed places?

Ontario has had a law where women are allowed to go topless in public areas since 1996. To this date I haven't personally seen one woman do this (except for this one chick outside of a Laser Quest at midnight drinking booze on top of her pick up drunk but she was facing the other way so it doesn't count). I've heard other stories as well but they are very few and far between in Ontario during that stretch.

[Steve]

I'm really curious about the real reason behind those people who consider women being topless "slutty". Was it religion, parents or school that taught them that?

[Thu'um]

I'm really curious about the real reason behind those people who consider women being topless "slutty". Was it religion, parents or school that taught them that?

it really is the way i have seen woman who wear little or no clothing act that has made me consider them sluts

[ballisticwaffles]

it really is the way i have seen woman who wear little or no clothing act that has made me consider them sluts

Well, thats cause your masoganistic.

I'm really curious about the real reason behind those people who consider women being topless "slutty". Was it religion, parents or school that taught them that?

All throughout history it has just evolved like that, even during the tribalistic era of prehistory, when females dominated. I do believe it is to prevent damage to the Bresticles, more importantly the milk they provide, but that is simply an educated guess.

[Thu'um]

Well, thats cause your masoganistic.

i hope this is sarcasem or a joke :/

[Drasiana]

Xort your whole example is unfair for women. Women have breasts this makes them top heavy and also makes them have more flesh over their chest gathering more internal heat, even if you both had shirts off men generaly have an adventage due to physical build . and what about females just wearing a sports bra? their are many garmets they can wear that release quite a bit of heat with out having to go nude. besides i have heard it harder for women to run run with out a bra .

Okay, what? Top-heavy? No. Women are built to compensate for their own anatomical structures. If I stand perfectly still I'm not going to fall over because I have boobs. And how is anything that he said "unfair to women"? He was using an example of a time where he is socially allowed to take off his shirt and a woman is not, regardless of your, as a male's concieved notions of how a woman should act in that situation (WELL UH THEY NEED BRAS). Plus your point contradicts itself, if women gather so much more "internal heat", that's even MORE of a reason to allow them to whip off the shirt on the hot days.

but what will happen when i go to take the SAT and the girl next to me is nude....i can asure you it will make it much harder for me to focus or do well. infact just in school work in general i would do poorer. i would feel sexual implulses often and who wants a boner the whole day? Besides many adolestents would act upon these sexual impolses and that might lead to teenage pregnancy which is a bad thing.

If a girl comes to school topless (note that currently guys are required to also wear shirts during school, so this is a moot point to the current standard I am discussing), you aren't going to just pounce across the room and rape her. If you do, have fun working with your prison psychologist.

after all dras may be all for ya lets all go nude! but what about for thoase who might be ashamed or nervous about their bodies. if people are so willing to let their sexuality loose why can't i go up to any woman and simply ask how many times they have had sex or what kind the prefer. infact a certin member here had openly listed their a sexual fantasy of theirs and dras was quick to tell the person it was unproper. so why is nudity proper? the human body is a highly personal thing. i don't go around telling people how far through pubirty i am and i would be very uncomfortable with them knowing that.

Way to misinterpret everything I have said in this topic.

Point 1. No, I am not saying YAY LET'S ALL GO NUDE. I am saying women's nipples are not horrible dirty things, and should not be more taboo than male nipples, which are fucking everywhere and accepted that way.

Point 2. Nudity and sexuality are not the same thing. Do you get a raging boner walking through an art gallery?

Point 3. Because of point 2, there is a distinct difference between sighting a female nipple and managing not to burst into flame, and some asshat on a forum waddling up to you and saying OH MURR SO I REALLY LIKE HAVING SEX WITH ANIMALS.

i define nudity as the visiblity of organs that a gender develops through out puberty. men don't devlop breasts, woman do. And don't pull " well i find manly abs atractive. well i find woman's legs atractive and yet i don't consider that nudity.

You don't count naked legs as nudity? Even though they're naked? You can't just make up the definition to a word, man. A man that isn't wearing a shirt is half-naked, just as a woman who isn't wearing a shirt is.

i hope this is sarcasem or a joke

It's not. You are promoting gender inequality.

edit: and AJC, really? "The women you've seen wear no clothes"? How many of those have you seen? You're what, fifteen years old?

[Psygonis]

To stay in the original scope of the debate, I concur with you Dras, it is meaningless to hide only the nipples of the female breast. Either you can't uncover the breast at all or you can completely. Female sensitivity aside, so only graphically speaking, that's only an anatomical detail (whereas there is a clear anatomical difference between genders in the crouch area)...

That leads me to wonder whether full bare breast drawing if you don't draw nipples is fine or not by the way (or when you only sketch a partial outline of the ring (not sure of the word)).

Now, if I follow you in the real world, outside of the virtual grounds of SFO:

Tanning topless is not related to moral or whatever, it's how you feel exposing yourself, whoever's watching (or not). Beaches are places for leisure and tanning and so on and so forth... it's fine there. AJC talked about appropriate places and I kinda agree about that. In more common public places (streets, shops, restaurants...), whatever gender you are, you have to be dressed (even if your shoulders, arms and belly can be not covered like when you wear a bikini top, and it's not even like that everywhere).

Someone mentioned ancient civilizations where female nudity wasn't a problem. Yeah, in roman arenas, archer women (usually representing amazones) had to show one boob, and cut the other one (to help the archery shooting). In other places, a female showing her breast in public places was considered a whore. Prostitution was allowed there, so it was fine, but well, it was already kinda considered slutty to show your boobs! There were ( and still are I think) asian civilizations that allow females to work topless in the fields, because of the heat, but only while planting crops and such.

The fact that men still "can" wander topless in streets is tolerated because well... of secular traditions about that. Also, it's more likely that a man assaults a woman and overpowers her than the opposite. If there was a "risk" (physically speaking) to attack a woman, maybe rapers and pervs would think twice about it. So if you look at it in an opposite way, it's considered not riskier (or even not risky at all) for men to walk topless. That's why they can. (And that's also why girls can tan topless on beaches, it's crowded, so kinda safe).

You'd say, they are laws for that, to protect girls (dressed or not), but whatever laws, what's done is done, and men that rape others aren't known for caring much about that... So since seeing boobs and such can potentially exponentially increase the risk (mentally disordered persons you know...) for girls, it's the "better safe than sorry" policy applied there. And I'm afraid it's not gonna change anytime soon...

Oh and the "but what about the slutty ads everywhere?" doesn't stand in the allowing females to wander topless debate, because you "can't" rape a poster... It gives a poor image of women though, and I think it certainly doesn't help mentalities evolving the right way...

[Sarita]

So, I was watching Work of Art: The Next Great Artist last night, and one of the contestants does a nude photo shoot, Only her breasts mind you. They censor it up until after she prints the photos. Then it's nipples galore. An interesting thought: why is the actual art more "artistic" (and thus acceptable) than the process of making it? They already warn you before the show starts that they're going to show things not suitable for minors.

[Drasiana]

You'd say, they are laws for that, to protect girls (dressed or not), but whatever laws, what's done is done, and men that rape others aren't known for caring much about that... So since seeing boobs and such can potentially exponentially increase the risk (mentally disordered persons you know...) for girls, it's the "better safe than sorry" policy applied there. And I'm afraid it's not gonna change anytime soon...

Actually, no.

First of all, read this. To follow it up, rape is highly based around power, not around "oh derp I just had to because my boner was so big, you know?". When prostitutes are raped, it's not because they're in skimpy clothing, it's because due to their profession men feel "entitled" to what they have to offer. Regular women wearing t-shirts and jeans are raped every day. Some studies even show that rapists will intentionally go after more conservatively-dressed women, because it may indicate a lack of confidence and therefore less willing to fight back.

Secondly, you're promoting the concept of restricting women "for their own good" instead of promoting taking action against the very forces you believe they should be protected from. Again, you are giving power to rapists and taking power from women. If there is a risk to going outside topless, women will be aware of it, and make their own decision on whether or not to go through with it, but as it stands, there's a risk of going outside wearing anything.

[ballisticwaffles]

i hope this is sarcasem or a joke

If i was jesting, i wold have said something more outlandish.

That was not outlandish.

Your Argument is solely based apon your very biased opinion, rather than actual fact.

Rape is not based off how little or how much you wear, for that would mean beaches would be rape centrals of the world.

They are not.

Clothes don't get people raped, sick sadistic people get people raped.

[Faisul]

Now, if I follow you in the real world, outside of the virtual grounds of SFO:

Tanning topless is not related to moral or whatever, it's how you feel exposing yourself, whoever's watching (or not). Beaches are places for leisure and tanning and so on and so forth... it's fine there.

I agree!

In more common public places (streets, shops, restaurants...), whatever gender you are, you have to be dressed (even if your shoulders, arms and belly can be not covered like when you wear a bikini top, and it's not even like that everywhere).

That's social conventions talking. Strictly, you don't have to avoid certain behaviours unless they are viewed as damaging to the society as a whole. How we got to the point where nudity was considered damaging to society is largely through what I like to call Bullshit That Has No Bearing On What Really Matters. E.g. ancient religious and cultural convictions. At some point wearing clothes crossed over from being a purely practical thing to a mandatory exercise and it wasn't because civilizations fell at the drop of a trou.

Someone mentioned ancient civilizations where female nudity wasn't a problem.

Believe it or not, there are many cultures who still view nudity, including female nudity, as perfectly natural and cannot understand why we, the silly barbarians with our cell phones and lattes, freak out at the sight of a breast. Some of the amazonian tribes we haven't exterminated yet stand as poignant examples, and many countries across the world (where climate permits) have populations who choose to wear nothing in certain seasons of the year. If I recall correctly, the people of ancient Egypt went nude, and the men, if they wore anything, would wear a piece of cloth tied with string over the glans of their penis simply because it didn't chafe so bad when they worked in the mud banks or papyrus fields.

Yeah, in roman arenas, archer women (usually representing amazones) had to show one boob, and cut the other one (to help the archery shooting). In other places, a female showing her breast in public places was considered a whore. Prostitution was allowed there, so it was fine, but well, it was already kinda considered slutty to show your boobs!

Not to derail, but amazons cutting off one of their breasts didn't happen. Ancient historians loved to exaggerate the customs of those kooky barbarian tribes. Also, a temple prostitute and prostitute in general were not viewed as 'sluts' per se until people decided that sex and having fun was a Bad Thing. Prostitution used to be one of the cornerstones of the ancient service industry (heh) such as it was, and in many cultures prostitutes were regarded highly. To summarize: Citation Needed.

The fact that men still "can" wander topless in streets is tolerated because well... of secular traditions about that.

Can, but shouldn't? Also the separation of church and state has little bearing on the... hang on... Are you suggesting everyone should cover their nipples???

No, men "can" amble around topless "still" because the systematic and centuries-old misconceptions and injustices of gender inequality has fostered generations of people indoctrinated to believe that men can do whatever they want because they possess C & B's.

Also, it's more likely that a man assaults a woman and overpowers her than the opposite. If there was a "risk" (physically speaking) to attack a woman, maybe rapers and pervs would think twice about it. So if you look at it in an opposite way, it's considered not riskier (or even not risky at all) for men to walk topless. That's why they can. (And that's also why girls can tan topless on beaches, it's crowded, so kinda safe).

So because men have been allowed to think that women are walking furniture for a while, the most reasonable way to deal with the problem is dressing women up in a burqa? Also rape doesn't happen the way you think as often as you seem to think - a majority of rape takes place between people who know each other well. So the level of dress the victim of rape is wearing is pretty much irrelevant, as predators will rape them irregardless of wear.

You'd say, they are laws for that, to protect girls (dressed or not), but whatever laws, what's done is done, and men that rape others aren't known for caring much about that... So since seeing boobs and such can potentially exponentially increase the risk (mentally disordered persons you know...) for girls, it's the "better safe than sorry" policy applied there. And I'm afraid it's not gonna change anytime soon...

I read this as "better oppressed and kept in a box than sorry"

And it will change as soon as the intentional ignoring of reported rapes and the culture of blaming the victim is eradicated.

Oh and the "but what about the slutty ads everywhere?" doesn't stand in the allowing females to wander topless debate, because you "can't" rape a poster... It gives a poor image of women though, and I think it certainly doesn't help mentalities evolving the right way...

You're partially right. Portrayals of women in advertising, pornography and other media has, for a long time, shaped the view on women as reasonable targets for objectification. It swings both ways, unhealthy attitudes towards fitness and weight in both genders being the primary results. But, as usual, women has gotten the short end of the stick in this regard. Women HAVE to conform. Women HAVE to be pretty dolls during their youth and early adulthood, and as soon as menopause hits they're worthless. But men just gain character as they age. There isn't a single prejudice or sexist attitude that doesn't have something to do with how our society's moral values are fundamentally skewed in the favor of men.

[Psygonis]

I'd like to point the fact that rapists and lesser pervs don't follow the same logic than "normal" people ("normal" referring to people that won't assault other beings for sexual motives in their usual state).

No law, no measure, no training, no whatever (except having a cop or something next to each girl in the world) can prevent anyone from the complex (and usually illogical) mechanics that trigger rapists to act. It's not empowering them, it's facts.

Such people can link girls dressed in a "slutty" way to prostitutes and then act against them like the way you described.

Some are actually just turned on by the "over"-sight of female flesh.

Some see their mothers/sisters/ex-girlfriends/... in other girls and assault them for psychiatric reasons.

Some are whatever else...

You're right, it's about feeling powerful in front of other beings considered easy targets. But skin exposure is one (out of a myriad of others maybe) factor that can trigger it. Maybe not the main one, but still one of them.

Rape is not based off how little or how much you wear, for that would mean beaches would be rape centrals of the world.

They are not.

Rapers don't act where there are crowds. Because it is not safe for them. So yeah, beaches are not rape centrals, but it is not because girls can tan topless there...

(In the same logic, beaches at night, when there's no one there are dangerous places for girls alone)

Clothes don't get people raped, sick sadistic people get people raped.

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like NRA officials saying that it's people that kill people, not guns... It's true, but incomplete, and therefore invalid, when used as a statistical argument.

Speaking of numbers and statistics, the paper mentioned in the article Dras linked gives no precision about how many subjects they used for their surveys, and uses as a test group a bunch of college students (lol?). That's not exactly how you submit scientific results, even in the (loose) field of human studies, and in that case evolutionary psychology... The paper makes no mention of the recognized hypothesis that deviances can be mixed as behavioral patterns and be independent as motives at the same time. So the association of classically-dressed women with easy targets could be considered as a fantasy, or a picturization of another "desired object" and not as the main motivational mechanics of rape.

Another point not mentioned, neither in the paper or that thread is that rapists are not the only one sexually assaulting women. Drunks, junkies, homeless... All people in a weak state of mind that can have some unusual mental shortcuts leading to harmful acts... It's to be proved that dressing "slutty" is not a criteria in such assault situations.

So yeah, anyway, there is a risk, whatever you are wearing. But if you can prevent things from being worse, especially in countries with a christian (some would say puritan) cultural backgrounds, well... No wonder how politicians think (even if they'd probably not mind seeing more girls dressed lightly in the streets). Oh, and if this policy is not applied with other great sources of risks, such as smoking, it's because unlike rape, smokes and cars and guns and whatever are markets.

[ballisticwaffles]

Rapers don't act where there are crowds. Because it is not safe for them. So yeah, beaches are not rape centrals, but it is not because girls can tan topless there...

My apologies, i was using AJC's logic and throwing it at him. Sorry if i wasnt clear.

[Drasiana]

Psygonis, read this. Baww it's Wiki I know, read the citations as well.

You are still suggesting restricting the rights of women rather than giving them a choice. Therefore you are treating them as objects that must have laws in place specifically surrounding them because they are too incompetant to deal with the world on their own. You are promoting victim-blaming and not promoting any deal of help to the hundreds or thousands of women who have been raped by friends of theirs without any provocation, clothes-wise or otherwise.

Nudity "can" be a trigger for rapists? You know that women can rape men? Or men can rape other men? Do you also advocate that men be disallowed to go topless because of the instances of this occuring?

edit: While I'm at it, read this. Blog can be NSFW, but you'll also find the link to the article on the possible disassociation of clothing and rape in there. I tried to find it earlier but got the one I'd posted instead.

[Thu'um]

Er, sorry but i can asure everyone here i in no way like men more then woman. To say that i do because i beilive woman should wear shirts in public places is absured! exscpecialy when i beilive men should too! And dras if a girl showed up to school and sat next to me i would have an extremely hard time focusing. It is a natural thing for that to happen. Then lets bring it all back to my childhood. If i was exsposed to nudity at such a young age then why now am i atracted the female human body? Because thats a natural human function. Todlers don't feel sexual emotions because they. cant. They havn't gotten to that stage of life. And also i have been conditioned to see breasts as sexual things then why do i see a woman's arse or her knees atractive? These impulses

To these thing are natural.

[ballisticwaffles]

im sorry, but what?

[unoservix]

What does that have to do with double standards in male and female toplessness?

[Xortberg]

AJC, I'm a bit miffed that you still haven't gotten around to answering all my points.

[Drasiana]

I'm a bit miffed that he hasn't made a point other than "I get horny sometimes". AJC, you're making yourself look like a dick-driven moron who can't think for himself.

As long as we're using personal anecdotes here, I'll offer my two cents.

I live on the third floor of a long-term hotel. There are apartment buildings across the street from me. My computer desk is positioned in an area that gives me a good line of sight into these buildings, so I often look up towards them to give my eyes a break from the computer.

One of these apartment residents is a young guy who just loves walking around naked. So, yes, I have often taken a break from writing bitter diatribes about a video game, looked out my window into the sunny streets, and seen pure white man-dong flopping around in the window.

Now, I'm attracted to men. Have a boyfriend and all that. But the sight of this dude's wang didn't push me into a frothy hurricane of arousal. I wasn't overcome with some primal urge to run downstairs and across the street in order to ride that like a Hummer. My reaction upon seeing it was "hmm, that dude's naked". And then I moved on with my life, because I was of the maturity to realize that, hey, men have dicks! The postman? Has a dick. That guy who just served you your pumpkin latte with extra whip? Dick. Your sixty year old English professor? Dick. They also have nipples. So do women!

Don't blame other people and the anatomy they share with everyone else for your lack of self-control.

[Steve]

Part of me wants to comment and part of me wants to mod this topic. Alas, let's see how this keeps developing.

At any rate, women can be as "sexual" as men, they just not tend to voice it loud and they normally keep it private.

I personally wouldn't like to have everyone going shirtless, unless it's beach time, or I dunno. All that bouncing can be distracting in sports, be it lady bouncing or manly bouncing, it would make me go "wtf physics!"

[Psygonis]

ballisticwaffles> Oh, fine...

Drasiana>

Each time you debate about something, you look like you put on thinking blinkers.

It's not about restricting women, it's about trying to protect victims. Coincidentally (oh, I mean because of physical builds), most victims are girls/women, from male abuse. You called male victims (from women and other men), but these are rather minor cases in number (of course not in violence and impact for the victims).

The day rapist girls become a statistical threat to men, I believe measures would be taken as well.

Now, if you want to have the choice about potentially dangerous behaviors, I think there is no law anywhere that prevent you from stabbing you in the belly, drive through a wall or jump from the 1XXth floor of a building. But in regard of (the absence of) clothing, I'm afraid there are regulations.

I guess that at the present time, most women seeing some men's nipples only statistically giggle, and that is not, as far as I know, a societal problem.

Take the opposite, and history shows that problems occur, such as sexual violence. Do you support sexual violence Dras?

Of course not, I don't either, and I wouldn't even mind myself having the delightful pleasure to appreciate the charms of the female body a bit more (I'd certainly leave my room more often! ), because I can behave in society and suppress whatever sexually-driven impulses. It's sad to admit that it's not the case of apparently the vast majority of the male population throughout the world.

It sucks, I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Males in overall (and apparently this includes AJC! ) think with their privates and that is a danger to women.

Also, you suggest males and females are built the same way, think the same way, act the same way... This is a lovely though, but it's not true. Different thought patterns induce different behaviors, so by extension different habits. And unfortunately, it takes restriction to lower sexual violence. A bit like security in the airports and such. It sucks to be restricted about your cargo/belongings etc... but if it's what it takes to prevent people from terrorism... Do you support terrorism too Dras'? D:

Faisul> (I'll reply to your points in the order you wrote them)

Of course I'm talking social convention-wise. When you walk in the streets, you are in society. That's why you're expected not to piss or defecate on lamps or under benches, not to hit others or steal things... As long as it is not considered socially fine to wander topless or naked, well, it's not. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, or that it won't ever change (or women wouldn't have rights, children wouldn't have rights, colored-people wouldn't have rights (in "white countries") and so on and so forth), just that at the present time, it's globally considered not fine yet.

You'll note that nudity (the same way as cloth wearing) is considered a practical habit in the exemples you mentioned. I doubt Inuits would find nudity a practical habit for going out and fish through ice holes. People found the need to keep themselves covered long before religious bullshit gave its opinion about the matter.

In the end, things are linked. Because of morphological facts (boobs and such in female's anatomy) and genetic factors (AJC's way of focusing), for millenaries, it had been fine for men to wander topless, and not women. It's gender inequity? Yeah, definitely, but strictly morphologically speaking, we haven't been made equal! Is that so hard to acknowledge if not accept? I mean, just look at yourself and then someone of the other gender. It's hard to miss that he's/she's not built the same way...

What can I say? Like for racism, homophobia, xenophobia and such, you can't change people, how they are inside. Or you'd have to brainwash them. However, what people do is something we can judge and regulate. And that's because it's not acceptable to act like females are walking pieces of furniture that there are laws to protect them. In an ideal world, laws should be hard enough to refrain rapists and other offenders from acting, but in the real world, it's not enough. You can't prevent rapes from happening. So what can you do? Make regulations that prevent usual targets from being in "optimal" conditions of being assaulted. And one of these regulations states that you got to wear cloth (not the burqa, just regular cloth). Because it's social interaction, because society is made to counter natural pulsions of humans. In a world where flesh exposure wouldn't change people's behavior, I believe it'd be fine to dress (or not dress) the way you like.

You mention rapes that happen in the private circle. Yes, these have nothing to do with clothing. That's because they happen in the private sphere. In your own home, you can dress the way you want. Public nudity is by definition about how you dress in public places, outside of your private space.

And yeah, some rapist won't wait for their victims to be undressed. But still, some can be triggered by nudity, even partial. That's weird how people get all binary when they debate. If I think preventing girls from wandering naked helps preventing from being assaulted, then I have to want them to wear burqas! Stop it, it's stupid... ¬¬

So, again, "better oppressed and kept in a box than sorry"? Yeah, kinda, it's the usual liberty/security dilemma. But your comment on it is that victims have not to be ignored anymore. This has to be, taking care of victims. But the actual point is not to have victims anymore. So I think you missed yours on that.

Soooo, for the last time you say it in your point. Yeah, all that crap's inequal, biased, whatever... That's how it's been because first societies were based on physical facts, and on the principle that people like to do what they were doing yesterday already (whet you could call traditions). It sucks, yeah, even now, but mentalities evolve (at some speed), and with them, social norms, and laws. And at some point, the relationship people have with nudity. Eventually...

[Drasiana]

ballisticwaffles> Oh, fine...

Drasiana>

Each time you debate about something, you look like you put on thinking blinkers.

What the hell does that mean?

It's not about restricting women, it's about trying to protect victims. Coincidentally (oh, I mean because of physical builds), most victims are girls/women, from male abuse. You called male victims (from women and other men), but these are rather minor cases in number (of course not in violence and impact for the victims).

The day rapist girls become a statistical threat to men, I believe measures would be taken as well.

Now, if you want to have the choice about potentially dangerous behaviors, I think there is no law anywhere that prevent you from stabbing you in the belly, drive through a wall or jump from the 1XXth floor of a building. But in regard of (the absence of) clothing, I'm afraid there are regulations.

...what?

Okay, so first thing here, you're undermining male rape victims, which is a no-no. Yes, there are few of them. So? That doesn't mean the few that are there should be ignored, or worse, made to look like "sissies". Measures have to be taken NOW to drive home the fact that Rape Is Bad, no matter which gender it's inflicted upon.

And I have no idea what you're even trying to say in that last part. There are no laws preventing you from being stabbed? Um, yes there are? Rape is against the law, just as stabbing people is. If that was an attempt at metaphor it fell completely flat.

I guess that at the present time, most women seeing some men's nipples only statistically giggle, and that is not, as far as I know, a societal problem.

Take the opposite, and history shows that problems occur, such as sexual violence. Do you support sexual violence Dras?

You're quite obviously misreading my post if you believe what you just accused me of. Read it again.

Of course not, I don't either, and I wouldn't even mind myself having the delightful pleasure to appreciate the charms of the female body a bit more (I'd certainly leave my room more often! ), because I can behave in society and suppress whatever sexually-driven impulses. It's sad to admit that it's not the case of apparently the vast majority of the male population throughout the world.

It sucks, I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Males in overall (and apparently this includes AJC! ) think with their privates and that is a danger to women.

Way to make your own gender appear to be pathetic cavemen, bro. Women are just as sexual as men, they've just been conditioned to hide it. Because, as with the censorship of only female nipples, only female sexuality is depicted as bad.

Also, you suggest males and females are built the same way, think the same way, act the same way... This is a lovely though, but it's not true. Different thought patterns induce different behaviors, so by extension different habits. And unfortunately, it takes restriction to lower sexual violence. A bit like security in the airports and such. It sucks to be restricted about your cargo/belongings etc... but if it's what it takes to prevent people from terrorism... Do you support terrorism too Dras'? D:

Wow, Psy. I initially thought of you as a smart and credible young man. But you're not. You're sitting here, spouting rediculous nonsense sans citations and then call me a terrorist in place of an actual arguement. To compare nudity with terrorism is completely asinine. Boobs aren't bombs.

Of course I'm talking social convention-wise. When you walk in the streets, you are in society. That's why you're expected not to piss or defecate on lamps or under benches, not to hit others or steal things... As long as it is not considered socially fine to wander topless or naked, well, it's not.

Yes it is. For men.

You'll note that nudity (the same way as cloth wearing) is considered a practical habit in the exemples you mentioned. I doubt Inuits would find nudity a practical habit for going out and fish through ice holes. People found the need to keep themselves covered long before religious bullshit gave its opinion about the matter.

Religious matters are why it was then seen that nudity was "bad". Clothes are practical, yes, and that is primarily why I like wearing them. But if I see myself naked in the mirror I'm not tempted to whip out a crucifix and start crying in shame.

In the end, things are linked. Because of morphological facts (boobs and such in female's anatomy) and genetic factors (AJC's way of focusing), for millenaries, it had been fine for men to wander topless, and not women. It's gender inequity? Yeah, definitely, but strictly morphologically speaking, we haven't been made equal! Is that so hard to acknowledge if not accept? I mean, just look at yourself and then someone of the other gender. It's hard to miss that he's/she's not built the same way...

What are you even saying? Yes, men have penises and women have vaginas. We both also have brains, blood, bones, and more. That isn't gender inequality, that's anatomical differences. Gender inequality is using those differences as a rope of control.

What can I say? Like for racism, homophobia, xenophobia and such, you can't change people, how they are inside. Or you'd have to brainwash them.

"I'm just born this way!" is a poor excuse for rape.

However, what people do is something we can judge and regulate. And that's because it's not acceptable to act like females are walking pieces of furniture that there are laws to protect them. In an ideal world, laws should be hard enough to refrain rapists and other offenders from acting, but in the real world, it's not enough. You can't prevent rapes from happening. So what can you do?

Prevent rape from happening? Self-defence is a possibility. My friend levelled a guy on his back after he grabbed her crotch. Pepper spray is there too. Also, there's the whole part where you can teach men that women aren't their objects that they cannot take advantage of whenever they feel like it. Yes, saying "rape is bad" is one thing, but that's only the very surface of the issue. By pretending that the members of your gender are big stupid cavemen and women are fragile little things incapable of defending themselves that must be continually censored "for their own good", you are justifying the rape mentality.

You mention rapes that happen in the private circle. Yes, these have nothing to do with clothing. That's because they happen in the private sphere. In your own home, you can dress the way you want. Public nudity is by definition about how you dress in public places, outside of your private space.

And yeah, some rapist won't wait for their victims to be undressed. But still, some can be triggered by nudity, even partial. That's weird how people get all binary when they debate. If I think preventing girls from wandering naked helps preventing from being assaulted, then I have to want them to wear burqas! Stop it, it's stupid... ¬¬

What? Are you fucking kidding me? Okay, first, read this. (notice how I'm actually giving sources?)

I'll quote it for you...just in case you are too busy building strawmen and nonsensical ramblings about terrorism:

• 80% of rape victims are under the age of 30. 44% of victims are under the age of 18.
  

These are children. They go to school. They do homework. They hang out with their friends and go to parties. They are doing nothing that is "provoking" their attackers. They are attacked because they are weaker, and as they are developing, can become terribly confused about this situation. Social stigma is terrible regarding rape everywhere, but especially in the gossipy, vitriolic world of high school.

• 2/3 of assaults are committed by someone the victim knows.
  

This is over half. If we're going by your logic, here, then the "random guy rapes you because you're walking naked through the park for some reason" scenerio is out the window. Also by your logic, women should be forbidden for interacting with men anytime, anywhere, especially in their own home, because this means that there's a chance that they'll get raped.

So, again, "better oppressed and kept in a box than sorry"? Yeah, kinda, it's the usual liberty/security dilemma. But your comment on it is that victims have not to be ignored anymore. This has to be, taking care of victims. But the actual point is not to have victims anymore. So I think you missed yours on that.

No, he hasn't. By not telling men not to rape, and saying "oh well that's just how men are", you are contributing to victim shame.

Soooo, for the last time you say it in your point. Yeah, all that crap's inequal, biased, whatever... That's how it's been because first societies were based on physical facts

None of which you have shown. Good job!