Women's nipples are now a felony

[Slyfox696]

I am just curious...are you therefore against the Violence Against Women Act that Congress just signed?

No, why would I? The Violence Against Women Act protects the rights of people, it doesn't punish them for biological conditions. Additionally, the protections under the act apply equally to men and women. And with the latest version which passed, the protections extend to homosexual couples.

Why would I be against it?

And regardless of your opinion, American culture still considers exposing of the breasts in public to be taboo.

And again, you miss the point. And again you prove your lack of intelligence.

Thats why its illegal.

Auto-erotic asphyxiation is taboo and it's not illegal. That's a ridiculous statement.

Thats the concept that I've been driving at for about 3 posts now and is surprisingly hard for you to wrap your head around.

No, it's not. I don't disagree it's taboo, I'm the one who has said it. The problem isn't with what I understand, the problem is with what YOU understand, or more specifically what you don't understand, which is that if you quit treating it as taboo, if you quit passing laws which punish one gender and not the other, then it will eventually no longer be taboo.

I've said this multiple times now, and you still don't understand it.

My point isnt based on history its based on current cultural notions. Today, its wrong to be topless in public, so I stand by those laws.

No, it's not. If I want to go topless, I can. It's only wrong to go topless if you're a female.

Once again, you show your sexist attitudes.

Just picture yourself explaining to Al Sharpton how women not being able to show their tits us just like slavery. No, seriously, stop and actually picture it. Because if you can picture him doing anything other than pimp slapping you across the face after such an ass backwards arguing point then you're not thinking right.

Who cares what Al Sharpton thinks? Does Al Sharpton speak for all people who are black? Who's being racist now?

For example, my friend John is black and he agrees completely with me. And that's not conjecture, that's fact.

And you've polled everyone who's made that assumption to know this to be a valid statement?

I don't have to, I know human biology. And in no way are breasts and vaginas the same sexually. And if you don't understand how they are different, then I suggest you either A) have sex or B) study human biology.

What separates you from them is that they dont feel the need to sprinkle in juvenile virginity jokes

Why do you keep saying I made a virgin joke? I did no such thing. For God's sake, your debating skills are ridiculously poor, probably because your IQ is so low. What I did was use an ad hominem fallacy, to try and illustrate how ridiculous it is to assert breasts and vaginas are the same thing.

I wasn't making a joke. Though it doesn't surprise me this flew over your head.

If it insults you so much when someone has a differing view point

See, this is why I call you stupid. Allow me to repost what I just said,

No, people who say stupid things are stupid. I don't care if you disagree, just don't do it stupidly.

The point is the majority of the population lacks the desire to try out this social experiment of yours.

Equality is now a social experiment?

You can't force feed society anything.

Says the person who is arguing in support of a law force feeding society. Hypocrite much?

I'm not arguing for a law that requires women to be topless. I'm arguing against a law which makes it illegal to be topless for just women. Only one position here is force-feeding society anything, and it's your position.

Breasts =/= legs. Society's current view of breasts =/= society's current view of legs. I cant break this shit down any more than this.

Society's view on legs during the Victorian Era ≈ Society's current view on breasts

I can't break that down for you anymore. Not surprising you are still not getting it.

And the shitty strawman saga continues.

That's not a strawman argument. You MIGHT be able to call it a False Analogy, but it's really not, since we're just comparing two things; biological factors and the laws made because of them. At which point, my argument holds water.

I refuse to play into this racist shit any more. If you cant tell the difference between breasts and melanin thats your problem.

And if you can't see that you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth, regarding biological factors and the laws construed because of them, then that's your problem.

You don't want to say that laws should be different for people who are biologically different due to skin color, because you know it's completely wrong to do so. Your primary argument in this discussion is that it is okay to outlaw baring women's breasts, because of current day societal views upon it. However, when confronted with the societal views upon black people for almost 200 years, you reject the idea that laws should conform to societal views.

What you are saying is that societal views are inconsequential when it unfairly targeted the biological differences between black and white people, but that societal views are important when targeting the biological differences between men and women.

Do you really not see the ridiculousness of your position?

I love how you removed my supreme court point

Because it was a ridiculous point, not worthy of my response. The Supreme Court once decided equality was state-sponsored segregation (which resulted in prejudiced practices). This was later overturned in Brown vs. Board of Education.

The Supreme Court does not get to decide the definition of equality, they only decide how legislation conforms to the Constitution. Without the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court could never have ruled in favor of Oliver Brown and others, and thus, could never have ruled for equality.

I love how you made a point which was so ridiculous I skipped over it and then you commented how I skipped your stupid comment.

equality is subjective.

No, it is not. You cannot change the meaning of the word simply to try and suit your argument.

YES! YES! Based on biological factors! And you know what, men dont have tits.

Uhh, yes they do. Regardless of whether you are talking about breasts, areolas or nipples, men have all of them, just like women do. Women simply store more fat in theirs, and have milk ducts in them.

But I do find your comment here interesting. So you agree this law targets people based upon biological differences? So racism is bad and sexism is good?

When you remove the gender aspect of it, they're still legs.

And when you remove the gender aspect of it, they're still breasts.

However, men dont have tits.

I REALLY think you need to take a couple courses on the human anatomy. You think breasts and the vagina are the same sexually and think men don't have either one.

The first statement is true, the second is another pitiful strawman on your part.

I only made one statement. Since there is no second statement, I can only assume this means you really did say what I thought you did.

Holy crap, man. That's seriously offensive.

You know when Civil Rights gained some real ground, when the majority public opinion towards African Americans changed.

Yes, and it's amazing how that happened once we quit legally making black people second class citizens.

You cling so much to this racism strawman

It's not a strawman, it's an illustration to how hypocritical your position is. You obviously do not believe in laws targeting one group of citizens based upon biology...except when it comes to females.

Your argument of severity doesn't change my argument of equality. Is women going topless as important as black people not being denied education? No. I have never once said it is, and your insinuation that I have IS a straw man argument (a legitimate straw man argument, not one you have erroneously believed to be a strawman). All I have said is that if you do not believe biological factors of race should be used when crafting legislation, you should also not believe biological factors of gender should not be used when crafting legislation. Or, more accurately, you should not specifically have laws punishing one biological group and not the other, for committing the same deed.

Again, if you want to punish men for showing nipples, then I would think it absurd, but not sexist. But when you only punish women for this, it is sexist.

which is funny because had you been a white man during the 60's you would've most likely not supported Civil Rights.

Really? What makes you say that? I was raised by parents who were white and born in the 60s, and I believe very much in equality. Why would it have been different?

God a fucking feminist, no wonder. This notion of yours that women not being allowed to bear their breasts is somehow some misogynistic punishment is getting old and tired.

Once again, you completely miss the point.

The problem isn't that women aren't allowed to, the problem is that men are and women are not. What's amazing to me is how you could have completely misunderstood that, when you quoted it specifically.

I also like how you referred to me as "a fucking feminist, no wonder". I think that says quite a bit about your sexist attitudes. Apparently wanting equality now makes a person "a fucking feminist", to be said with scorn and derision.

Face it, you're a sexist.

That being said, this feminist point of view rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, those uppity women demanding equality! What's wrong with them?!

You're a sexist.

We all have to make compromises in this society.

Then how about you compromise by agreeing this bill is entirely sexist, since it is only focusing on women and not men? Or how about North Carolina compromising and making it illegal for both men and women from showing their nipple? That would be equal.

If we remove the illusion of equality, and base our actions on logical means in respect to the will of the people, we'll have a more balanced approach to issues like this.

And, once again, if we did that, black people would still be second class citizens.

It's amazing how you seem to get so offended when I mention that, and yet you cannot tell me how they are different in application. You tell me they are of different severity, but you cannot refute my example.

Sure my feigned outrage.

Yes, your feigned outrage. Mine was real enough to actually post this thread. And I've long thought it is ridiculous a man has the choice to go topless, but a woman does not. Unlike you, I believe in equality.

You're a sexist. I think your last post has pretty well proven that. You want one set of laws for men and another for women. You are okay with women being punished for what men can do legally. Regardless of the severity of this issue, the law is sexist. For you to defend it, that means you share some of that sexism.

And the fact you literally said "a fucking feminist", with the same disdain as you would refer to a heroin addict, is pretty strong evidence that you are a sexist. Let me guess, you live in North Carolina?

 

[Alex]

I'll throw my opinion in.

Sly is right. I can walk around town with no top on and no one bats an eyelid. If a chick did that she'd get stares/possibly arrested or told to cover up.

Once something becomes common it isn't seen as taboo (as Sly's Victorian women example shows). I watch a lot of weird shit and when one of my friends shows me something that they think is provactive I normally don't bat an eyelid because that sort of stuff has become commonplace for me.

With the law Sly has gone on about it's simply making taking a step back for women's rights because it only affects women, if it had been passed for men as well it still would've been stupid but at least it showed equality.

 

[H33LTurn]

And again, you miss the point. And again you prove your lack of intelligence.

What possible further discourse could be garnered from this conversation. You sate that removing laws that prohibit toplessness would make the idea less taboo, and therefore a more commonplace practice. I believe that even the removal of those laws wouldn't have a major positive impact on today's society. In the future its entirely a possibility but in the present day such a provision would not be welcomed and would cause more of an uproar than it is worth.

Auto-erotic asphyxiation is taboo and it's not illegal. That's a ridiculous statement.

And its perfectly legal to be topless...in your home. The same place where its legal to choke yourself to achieve sexual satisfaction. Try doing it in public and you'll see why its wrong.

No, it's not. I don't disagree it's taboo, I'm the one who has said it. The problem isn't with what I understand, the problem is with what YOU understand, or more specifically what you don't understand, which is that if you quit treating it as taboo, if you quit passing laws which punish one gender and not the other, then it will eventually no longer be taboo.

I've said this multiple times now, and you still don't understand it.

Refer to what I've said above.

No, it's not. If I want to go topless, I can. It's only wrong to go topless if you're a female.

Once again, you show your sexist attitudes.

Call it whatever you want. At this point I could care less what prejudice you desire to pretend I observe. Its as simple as a biological difference reinforced by societal and cultural norms.

Who cares what Al Sharpton thinks? Does Al Sharpton speak for all people who are black? Who's being racist now?

For example, my friend John is black and he agrees completely with me. And that's not conjecture, that's fact.

And I doubt your friend was around during the Civil Rights movement. Someone like Al, who has actually lived through those dark times has the perfect perspective to put you in your place regarding to your comparisons.

I don't have to, I know human biology. And in no way are breasts and vaginas the same sexually. And if you don't understand how they are different, then I suggest you either A) have sex or B) study human biology.

I never said that they're the same thing, I said they're held to the same regard. Thats why exposing your breasts would be similar to exposing your vagina. Its like a guy exposing his balls compared to a guy exposing his penis. A little difference, but its not that huge, no pun intended. Speaking of which, how come women dont have to hide their ovaries but I have to cover my balls?!?!?! THATS MASCULINIST!!!!

Why do you keep saying I made a virgin joke? I did no such thing. For God's sake, your debating skills are ridiculously poor, probably because your IQ is so low. What I did was use an ad hominem fallacy, to try and illustrate how ridiculous it is to assert breasts and vaginas are the same thing.

I wasn't making a joke. Though it doesn't surprise me this flew over your head.

See, this is why I call you stupid. Allow me to repost what I just said,

"Stupid stupid stupid". If it made Randy Orton look bad, its making you look even worse.

Equality is now a social experiment?

A social experiment is a trial looking to inquire the perception of a culture group based on what that group considers to be the norm. So being that female toplessness is frowned upon my the majority of our society and it hasnt been tried before by our culture, it can absolutely be considered a social experiment.

Says the person who is arguing in support of a law force feeding society. Hypocrite much?

Its not force feeding society anything. Force feeding would imply that I was supporting a law against the majority will of the people. If you want to see society force fed something, look at the current legal battle against same sex marriage in California despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the state is in favor of same sex marriage.

That's not a strawman argument. You MIGHT be able to call it a False Analogy, but it's really not, since we're just comparing two things; biological factors and the laws made because of them. At which point, my argument holds water.

Its a stawman in the sense that you made a claimed that I made an argument which I never stated to begin with.

And if you can't see that you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth, regarding biological factors and the laws construed because of them, then that's your problem.

I'm not a fan of comparisons when it comes to the law, thats just my point of view. Its also the point of view of the Supreme Court, which settles cases like this on one by one in reference to their interpretation of the constitution, not on external issues.

You don't want to say that laws should be different for people who are biologically different due to skin color, because you know it's completely wrong to do so. Your primary argument in this discussion is that it is okay to outlaw baring women's breasts, because of current day societal views upon it. However, when confronted with the societal views upon black people for almost 200 years, you reject the idea that laws should conform to societal views.

I'm not that arrogant that I cant see myself being a typical racist bigot during colonial times. In fact, most people would be. Only a minority knew better, and although I've been fortunate enough to have been brought up in the current climate where there is a more mature view towards race, doesnt mean that had this been 200 years ago that I would be the type of hero I wish I could be and stand up against racism. If my point of view on the breast matter is in somehow prejudice, like I've said, only time will tell.

The Supreme Court does not get to decide the definition of equality, they only decide how legislation conforms to the Constitution. Without the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court could never have ruled in favor of Oliver Brown and others, and thus, could never have ruled for equality.

Take a government class some day son.

No, it is not. You cannot change the meaning of the word simply to try and suit your argument.

I'm not changing the meaning of the word. I'm saying quite clearly, that the legal application of this notion we refer to as "equality" is up to the subjective view of lawmakers.

Uhh, yes they do. Regardless of whether you are talking about breasts, areolas or nipples, men have all of them, just like women do. Women simply store more fat in theirs, and have milk ducts in them.

You dont have tits. You have breast. The actually titty (shit I cant believe I'm explaining this to you) is not there. Look at your girlfriends chest and that look and yours and tell me that you can see the difference. Hell even try feeling the difference (if shes cool with that).

Your argument of severity doesn't change my argument of equality. Is women going topless as important as black people not being denied education? No. I have never once said it is, and your insinuation that I have IS a straw man argument (a legitimate straw man argument, not one you have erroneously believed to be a strawman). All I have said is that if you do not believe biological factors of race should be used when crafting legislation, you should also not believe biological factors of gender should not be used when crafting legislation. Or, more accurately, you should not specifically have laws punishing one biological group and not the other, for committing the same deed.

If you believed that the severity is unequal, then the entire comparison in a complete stretch and party offensive. Again, it is not a punishment for a woman to wear a shirt. When women in large numbers consider it to be a punishment, then the laws will need to be revised.

Also, I removed the pork in you post that basically called me a sexist around a dozen times. Isms were at one time, acknowledged to be the central piece in what would eventually tear this country apart. Capitalism, socialism, and yes, sexism. This blind adherence to one particular belief, in this case your militant ideology towards breast equality, fails to take into account our social constructs. So if you choose to belief that I'm sexists, you go right ahead. I'll stay with the other 90% of society that finds it completely logical for women to cover their breasts and actually have the mental capacity to understand the difference between a man's chest and a woman's chest.

 

[Slyfox696]

I believe that even the removal of those laws wouldn't have a major positive impact on today's society

Any step towards equality under the law is already a major positive impact on today's society.

And its perfectly legal to be topless...in your home. The same place where its legal to choke yourself to achieve sexual satisfaction. Try doing it in public and you'll see why its wrong.

Don't confuse wrong and illegal. It's illegal for a woman to do the same thing it is legal for a man to do. That's the problem.

And I doubt your friend was around during the Civil Rights movement. Someone like Al, who has actually lived through those dark times has the perfect perspective to put you in your place regarding to your comparisons.

I somehow doubt Al Sharpton lived through slavery, what the fuck is your point? Do you just continuously think of the most stupid shit possible to say?

I never said that they're the same thing

They're the central piece of many pornos and all around regarded in the same class as the vagina.

Would you like to try again?

Thats why exposing your breasts would be similar to exposing your vagina.

I'm not even going to try and understand how that makes sense to you.

Its like a guy exposing his balls compared to a guy exposing his penis.

No, it's like a guy exposing his breasts compared to his penis.

The testes and penis are both necessary for conception. The vagina is necessary for conception. Breasts have nothing to do with conception. Thus, the difference.

Speaking of which, how come women dont have to hide their ovaries but I have to cover my balls?!?!?! THATS MASCULINIST!!!!

I'm literally laughing out loud at you right now. Seriously, you should really take my advice on human anatomy courses. You obviously don't know what an ovary is.

A social experiment is a trial looking to inquire the perception of a culture group based on what that group considers to be the norm. So being that female toplessness is frowned upon my the majority of our society and it hasnt been tried before by our culture, it can absolutely be considered a social experiment.

But I'm not advocating for women to go topless, I'm advocating against a law which forbids them to behave in the same manner a man can.

How many times do I have to say that before you'll understand it?

Its not force feeding society anything.

Bull-fucking-shit, it's not. It most certainly is. It is telling women they are not allowed to behave in the same manner a man is. That a woman cannot experience the same legal protections a man does. It most certainly is force feeding society.

Its a stawman in the sense that you made a claimed that I made an argument which I never stated to begin with.

But it's not a strawman, because I never claimed you said it. Don't argue fallacies with me, stupid boy, you will not win.

What I did was provide an analogy, using your logic as the guide. That is not a strawman, in any way, shape or form.

I'm not that arrogant that I cant see myself being a typical racist bigot during colonial times. In fact, most people would be. Only a minority knew better, and although I've been fortunate enough to have been brought up in the current climate where there is a more mature view towards race, doesnt mean that had this been 200 years ago that I would be the type of hero I wish I could be and stand up against racism. If my point of view on the breast matter is in somehow prejudice, like I've said, only time will tell.

......what the fuck are you talking about?

I'm trying to show that when it comes to treating people as equals, societal views are irrelevant. You are trying to claim popular opinion dictates equality. I'm refuting your position by stating how incredibly wrong popular opinion was when it came to slavery, thus disproving your statement that equality is dependent upon societal views.

Take a government class some day son.

Says the person who has no idea what the Supreme Court does.

I'm not changing the meaning of the word.

Yes, you are. You're trying to add ambiguity to a definition.

I'm saying quite clearly, that the legal application of this notion we refer to as "equality" is up to the subjective view of lawmakers.

Which has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about, which is the concept of true equality.

You dont have tits. You have breast. The actually titty (shit I cant believe I'm explaining this to you) is not there. Look at your girlfriends chest and that look and yours and tell me that you can see the difference. Hell even try feeling the difference (if shes cool with that).

.......

I'm literally dumbfounded as to how anyone can be this uneducated.

"Titty" is not a medically accepted term. You're referring to the nipple. Men have nipples, they are the little bumps that stand out from the areolas, which is the red/pink circle on the breast. The breast is made up of many different tissues, the largest of which in men is the pectoralis major and the largest of which in females is fat.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

If you believed that the severity is unequal, then the entire comparison in a complete stretch and party offensive.

Completely false, as the severity doesn't change what I'M talking about.

Again, it is not a punishment for a woman to wear a shirt.

Regardless of how you feel on that subject, it IS unfair a woman has to and a man doesn't.

I've said before and I'll say again. If this law required me to wear a shirt also, then I would think it is ridiculous, but it wouldn't be unfair.

Also, I removed the pork in you post that basically called me a sexist around a dozen times.

That's okay, I think it's pretty clear to everyone who reads this thread you're a sexist who does not have any knowledge of the human body.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

No, why would I? The Violence Against Women Act protects the rights of people, it doesn't punish them for biological conditions. Additionally, the protections under the act apply equally to men and women. And with the latest version which passed, the protections extend to homosexual couples.

Why would I be against it?

You're right. I took the wording way to literal when I read through it. ' protects women and youths', ' disabled women', 'Indian women'. Men, however, are equally protected under the act. My stupidity. Carry on.

 

[H33LTurn]

Any step towards equality under the law is already a major positive impact on today's society.

Your statement asserts that there is an inequality to begin with that in respect to the great adverse effects of legal female toplessness such as rampant sexual assault, would be worth it.

Don't confuse wrong and illegal. It's illegal for a woman to do the same thing it is legal for a man to do. That's the problem.

Its also legal for women to go to the female bathroom while its illegal for men to go to the female's bathroom. Its a gender discrepancy, plain and simple.

I somehow doubt Al Sharpton lived through slavery, what the fuck is your point? Do you just continuously think of the most stupid shit possible to say?

He lived through the Civil Rights movement. Thats why I mentioned the Civil RIghts movement. If you chose to read something thats not there its not my fault. And my point is a man like him would be the best judge as to whether female toplessness can be compared to the lack of civil rights african americans faced.

Would you like to try again?

I'm not even going to try and understand how that makes sense to you.

You cant read can you. You just simply cant. I guess when the letters C-L-A-S-S are arranged together to form a word your eyes suddenly cannot recognize them.

No, it's like a guy exposing his breasts compared to his penis.

The testes and penis are both necessary for conception. The vagina is necessary for conception. Breasts have nothing to do with conception. Thus, the difference.

The issue isnt conception here. Its nudity.

I'm literally laughing out loud at you right now. Seriously, you should really take my advice on human anatomy courses. You obviously don't know what an ovary is.

"Ovaries in female individuals are analogous to testes in male individuals, in that they are both gonads and endocrine glands." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovary

If a woman doesnt have to hide her ovaries, I should be able to rock out with my balls out.

But I'm not advocating for women to go topless, I'm advocating against a law which forbids them to behave in the same manner a man can.

How many times do I have to say that before you'll understand it?

Your problem is that you dont actually read a lick of shit that I post. Regardless of the technicalities of what you advocate or dont advocate, the end result would be female toplessness.

Bull-fucking-shit, it's not. It most certainly is. It is telling women they are not allowed to behave in the same manner a man is. That a woman cannot experience the same legal protections a man does. It most certainly is force feeding society.

Its not force feeding society when the overwhelming majority of society supports that kind of legislation.

But it's not a strawman, because I never claimed you said it. Don't argue fallacies with me, stupid boy, you will not win.

"Stupid boy". Are you fucking 10 or something? Seriously who the fuck told Randy Orton to get on WZ?

What I did was provide an analogy, using your logic as the guide. That is not a strawman, in any way, shape or form.

Nope, you said I was against women asking for their rights, which is something I have never said. Your post is right fucking there, just go and read it or pick up a dictionary.

......what the fuck are you talking about?

I'm trying to show that when it comes to treating people as equals, societal views are irrelevant. You are trying to claim popular opinion dictates equality. I'm refuting your position by stating how incredibly wrong popular opinion was when it came to slavery, thus disproving your statement that equality is dependent upon societal views.

Slavery and female nudity are NOT the same thing. Point fucking blank. How can a mentally stable person even claim that either of those two subjects belong in the same category?

Says the person who has no idea what the Supreme Court does.

"A Supreme Court Justice interprets laws and ensures that the US remains guided by the Constitution." -http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-a-supreme-court-justice-do.htm

Yes, you are. You're trying to add ambiguity to a definition.

Regardless of the textbook definition of equality, my point is legal equality is subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Which has fuck all to do with what I'm talking about, which is the concept of true equality.

You can argue your philosophy on true equality with someone who has time for that shit. I'm talking about the legal notion of equality.

.......

I'm literally dumbfounded as to how anyone can be this uneducated.

"Titty" is not a medically accepted term. You're referring to the nipple. Men have nipples, they are the little bumps that stand out from the areolas, which is the red/pink circle on the breast. The breast is made up of many different tissues, the largest of which in men is the pectoralis major and the largest of which in females is fat.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

And who is speaking on medical terms? The tit! THE FAT! How the fuck can you play so many mental gymnastics as to remain completely unaware that men to not typically posses the lumps on their chest that women do. And when they do, its usually considered a medical condition and not something that the porn industry spends million fetishizing or that men spend their time fantasizing about.

Completely false, as the severity doesn't change what I'M talking about.

Your talking about men in chains working hard labor being somehow comparable to a woman throwing on a shirt before she heads out the door, which actually makes you seem more batshit crazy than anything.

Regardless of how you feel on that subject, it IS unfair a woman has to and a man doesn't.

I've said before and I'll say again. If this law required me to wear a shirt also, then I would think it is ridiculous, but it wouldn't be unfair.

Again, the issue here isnt fairness. This isnt an elementary school playground. We're not talking about how many turns you get on the swing. We're talking about you being against legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by our society. Tell me, if slaves were actually in favor of slavery, overwhelmingly in favor of it, would it matter how fair it was?

That's okay, I think it's pretty clear to everyone who reads this thread you're a sexist who does not have any knowledge of the human body.

Yup, because I'm the guy who denies that theres a difference between my chest and a woman's chest, that slavery is abso-fucking-lutely like throwing on a shirt in the morning (if you're a girl), and that women are being discriminated against by legislation that they overwhelmingly support.

 

[Slyfox696]

Your statement asserts that there is an inequality to begin with

The law itself is a practice in inequality. Make both of them wear shirts, let both of them go shirtless, but don't give one set of rules to men and another to women.

Its also legal for women to go to the female bathroom while its illegal for men to go to the female's bathroom. Its a gender discrepancy, plain and simple.

Your analogy fails, because men can still go to the bathroom. Plus many places have unisex bathrooms. Finally, it's NOT illegal for a man to go into a female bathroom.

However, what is the female equivalent to men being able to take their shirts off and go bare chested?

He lived through the Civil Rights movement.

But not through slavery, which is what we both said. Your exact statement was:

Just picture yourself explaining to Al Sharpton how women not being able to show their tits us just like slavery. No, seriously, stop and actually picture it. Because if you can picture him doing anything other than pimp slapping you across the face after such an ass backwards arguing point then you're not thinking right.

Al Sharpton not living through slavery is like my friend John not living through Civil Rights movement. You say John is not qualified to speak on what it's like to be the victim of prejudice because he didn't live during the Civil Rights movement (which is absurd, if you know anything about my friend John), so if John isn't qualified, then Sharpton isn't qualified to speak about slavery, because he didn't live through slavery.

If you chose to read something thats not there its not my fault. And my point is a man like him would be the best judge as to whether female toplessness can be compared to the lack of civil rights african americans faced.

But what if I chose to read something that WAS there, that you DID write? Is that your fault? Because I read what you wrote, it's not my fault you've already forgotten what you wrote.

You cant read can you. You just simply cant. I guess when the letters C-L-A-S-S are arranged together to form a word your eyes suddenly cannot recognize them.

And what class is that? Sexuality, correct? So you are saying they are the same sexually. Which they are not.

Don't try and play word games, you are terrible at them.

The issue isnt conception here. Its nudity.

No, it very obviously is NOT nudity, because you're not concerned about men baring their biceps. That's nudity too.

You said breasts and vaginas are in the same class, the class of sex. They are not. Breasts play no role in conception. Thus, they are not in the same class.

"Ovaries in female individuals are analogous to testes in male individuals, in that they are both gonads and endocrine glands." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovary

If a woman doesnt have to hide her ovaries, I should be able to rock out with my balls out.

.........

Uhh, do you have any idea where the ovaries are? Do you know where they are on the female body? Why don't you research that, and then you'll understand why you look incredibly stupid right now.

Your problem is that you dont actually read a lick of shit that I post.

No, I read everything you say, the problem is you're a stupid boy.

Regardless of the technicalities of what you advocate or dont advocate, the end result would be female toplessness.

No, it wouldn't. That's asinine.

Millions of people in this country have the right to vote, who do not exercise that right. Just because you don't prohibit toplessness, that doesn't mean every woman is going to start shedding her shirt.

But even if every one of them did, so what? It's the human body, it's a natural thing, created by God (if you believe in God). The only difference between females breasts and male breasts are the amount of fat and milk ducts, that's it. If they want to go topless, who cares?

Its not force feeding society when the overwhelming majority of society supports that kind of legislation.

The majority of society supports sexism? Do you have statistics to support that?

I'm saying they are force feeding inequality. You say the overwhelming majority of society supports this. Can you back this up?

"Stupid boy". Are you fucking 10 or something?

No, I'm just dealing with someone whose IQ doesn't quite reach 10. You're a stupid boy, there's no other explanation. I'm going to guess you're 15 or 16 years old.

Nope, you said I was against women asking for their rights, which is something I have never said.

But you are supporting a law which denies women equality. What else is a person supposed to believe?

That's still not a strawman argument. You CLEARLY have no idea what a strawman means.

Slavery and female nudity are NOT the same thing.

But inequality is. And both are examples of inequality.

Good God, you are a stupid boy.

How can a mentally stable person even claim that either of those two subjects belong in the same category?

Oh, like this?

Slavery resulted in an inequality between whites and blacks. This law creates an inequality between men and women.

If you cannot understand this very basic concept, you truly deserve your nickname of Stupid Boy.

"A Supreme Court Justice interprets laws and ensures that the US remains guided by the Constitution." -http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-a-supreme-court-justice-do.htm

Uhh, that's EXACTLY what I said...

Regardless of the textbook definition of equality, my point is legal equality is subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court.

You can argue your philosophy on true equality with someone who has time for that shit. I'm talking about the legal notion of equality.

You are such a moron.

Nobody is talking about the legal notion of equality. The legal notion of equality, which is interpreted by the Supreme Court ONLY with how it interacts with the Constitution, is a completely flawed concept, as we saw with the institution of slavery. We're talking the philosophical notion. This law is in violation of the philosophical notion of equality. You've been arguing this the entire thread.

Stupid Boy, will you please, just once, think before you type?

And who is speaking on medical terms? The tit! THE FAT! How the fuck can you play so many mental gymnastics as to remain completely unaware that men to not typically posses the lumps on their chest that women do. And when they do, its usually considered a medical condition and not something that the porn industry spends million fetishizing or that men spend their time fantasizing about.

MEN HAVE BREASTS! MEN HAVE NIPPLES! MEN HAVE AREOLAS! THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE IN THE BREASTS OF MEN AND WOMEN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AMOUNT OF FAT AND MILK DUCTS!!!

If I say it in all capital letters, will you finally understand it? "Tit" is not a medical term for the body. You keep telling me men don't have tits...well, neither do women. Men have breasts, women have breasts. Men have aerolas, women have aerolas. Men have nipples, women have nipples. Men have fat in their breasts, women have more fat in their breasts. Men have muscles in their breast, women have muscles in their breasts.

The fact you are sitting here telling me men don't have breasts shows an incredible ignorance to the human body. Quit using the word "tit", it makes you look like a child. Use the actual terms, so we can be clear on what exactly you feel women have and men do not. Tit is not a word to describe the human body, quit using it so we can clear the confusion on where your ignorance is being displayed.

Your talking about men in chains working hard labor being somehow comparable to a woman throwing on a shirt before she heads out the door, which actually makes you seem more batshit crazy than anything.

No, I'm talking about the inequality which exists as the result of both.

How many times do I have to explain this to you? Do you have any idea how hard it is for me to not just ban you for stupidity right now? It's a good thing for you I'm fair, because your stupidity is beyond any level a person can reasonably be expected to tolerate.

Again, the issue here isnt fairness.

The heck it isn't. The issue here is ENTIRELY about equality. This law unfairly penalizes women who want to do the same thing men can do. It's ALL about fairness.

Hell, I'M the one who created the thread, so I'm very aware what this is about.

This isnt an elementary school playground. We're not talking about how many turns you get on the swing. We're talking about you being against legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by our society.

Again, I ask you...can you please provide evidence the overwhelming majority of society is for inequality?

Tell me, if slaves were actually in favor of slavery, overwhelmingly in favor of it, would it matter how fair it was?

Yes. Without a doubt. Inequality under the law should never occur. Our law should strive to treat all people as equal, regardless of biological factors or popular opinion. A person should not lose their right to equality simply because of gender, race or sexual orientation.

Yup, because I'm the guy who denies that theres a difference between my chest and a woman's chest

No, you're the guy who thinks men don't have breasts and that breasts are the same thing as a vagina.

I've said this entire time there are differences between men and women's breasts, but the ONLY difference is the amount of fat stored in them and milk ducts. That's it. Otherwise, they are biologically exactly the same.

You're the one saying that women should be tried for felonies for doing the same thing men can do without legal repercussion. You're a sexist, and a very Stupid Boy.

 

[H33LTurn]

The law itself is a practice in inequality. Make both of them wear shirts, let both of them go shirtless, but don't give one set of rules to men and another to women.

We've already been through the difference between men and women several times. I'm not even going to go into that anymore.

Your analogy fails, because men can still go to the bathroom. Plus many places have unisex bathrooms. Finally, it's NOT illegal for a man to go into a female bathroom.

Fine, go into a female bathroom then when they have your mugshot ready post it on here. There are places where men and women can both be topless and where men can only be topless. Its your responsibility to find those places instead of trying to change the cultural norms of a region that is happy with the laws being the way they are.

But not through slavery, which is what we both said. Your exact statement was:



Al Sharpton not living through slavery is like my friend John not living through Civil Rights movement. You say John is not qualified to speak on what it's like to be the victim of prejudice because he didn't live during the Civil Rights movement (which is absurd, if you know anything about my friend John), so if John isn't qualified, then Sharpton isn't qualified to speak about slavery, because he didn't live through slavery.



But what if I chose to read something that WAS there, that you DID write? Is that your fault? Because I read what you wrote, it's not my fault you've already forgotten what you wrote.

Of course I forgot, you go crazy talking to a crazy person. The point is, if you told someone who experienced first hand the injustice of racism back when there were no legal repercussions for it, they would laugh at the fact that you're comparing it to wearing a t shirt.

And what class is that? Sexuality, correct? So you are saying they are the same sexually. Which they are not.

Don't try and play word games, you are terrible at them.

You're a teacher right, this should be simple. If two students are in the same class, are they the exact same person. Are they similar in the sense that they are both students, share the same teacher, and study the same subjects, yes? Although tits and the vagina are not the SAME EXACT THING, they are held to a similar regard SEXUALLY. They are fetishized sexually. Hell even in the Bible (and I'm not trying to start a religious argument, I'm just saying for the sake of bringing up something thats been around for a ridiculous amount of time, it still mentions receiving sexual satisfaction from breasts.

No, it very obviously is NOT nudity, because you're not concerned about men baring their biceps. That's nudity too.

You said breasts and vaginas are in the same class, the class of sex. They are not. Breasts play no role in conception. Thus, they are not in the same class.

Sex doesnt mean conception. Oh and if you cant grasp that concept ask a gay guy. The asshole doesnt have anything to do with conception yet they have sex with it and its illegal to show your ass.

.........

Uhh, do you have any idea where the ovaries are? Do you know where they are on the female body? Why don't you research that, and then you'll understand why you look incredibly stupid right now.

http://www.cancerssociety.org/images/overy.jpg

No, I read everything you say, the problem is you're a stupid boy.

Damn Randy, dont you have a house show to show up to or something?

No, it wouldn't. That's asinine.

Millions of people in this country have the right to vote, who do not exercise that right. Just because you don't prohibit toplessness, that doesn't mean every woman is going to start shedding her shirt.

But even if every one of them did, so what? It's the human body, it's a natural thing, created by God (if you believe in God). The only difference between females breasts and male breasts are the amount of fat and milk ducts, that's it. If they want to go topless, who cares?

Society cares, thats why we've made it illegal.

I'm saying they are force feeding inequality. You say the overwhelming majority of society supports this. Can you back this up?

No ones force feeding anything. Shit you have no idea what oppression is, do you?

No, I'm just dealing with someone whose IQ doesn't quite reach 10. You're a stupid boy, there's no other explanation. I'm going to guess you're 15 or 16 years old.

Thats it. Stop, I've had enough. I am done arguing with someone as mentally unstable as you. Shit who on earth uses "stupid boy" as an insult. Forget it, you're not 10, you're in your late 70's right? I guess I'm a ninconpoop too, right? If you want to believe that this:

http://free-textures.got3d.com/natu...ee-character-texture-references-woman-401.jpg

is anywhere close to this:

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/images/slavery.jpg

or this

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/slavery-abolition-granger.jpg

or this

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003296843/377214572_resisting_slavery_xlarge.png

thats your fucking fault. Jesus Christ, every man in this country except you understands the sexual aspects of breasts. Even the bronze age society that lived during biblical times understood.

 

[Slyfox696]

We've already been through the difference between men and women several times. I'm not even going to go into that anymore.

Yes, because you think men don't have breasts, when every other person in the world with a modicum of knowledge on the human body would tell you differently.

Fine, go into a female bathroom then when they have your mugshot ready post it on here.

I go into female bathrooms all the time. Whenever we have drills, I HAVE to go into the female bathroom, to make sure all students are out of them. When the janitors go to replace female hygiene products and toilet paper in the women's bathroom, do they get arrested?

Men can go into women's bathrooms. You're just stupid if you think otherwise.

There are places where men and women can both be topless

Just not in North Carolina. In North Carolina, they choose to discriminate based upon gender.

Of course I forgot, you go crazy talking to a crazy person. The point is, if you told someone who experienced first hand the injustice of racism back when there were no legal repercussions for it, they would laugh at the fact that you're comparing it to wearing a t shirt.

Uhh, do you think John has never been the victim of racism? Considering I know John better than you do, I'll go ahead and say you don't know what you're talking about.

By the way, you keep talking about a t-shirt. This has nothing to do with a t-shirt. This has everything to do with equality. Completely different. As I've said before, if the law said both men and women could not show nipple, it would not be discriminatory. The fact they are singling out women is what makes it discriminatory.

Oh, by the way, that Martin Luther King Jr. guy...yeah, why don't you go do some research on his opinion of women's rights. See what you find.

Although tits and the vagina are not the SAME EXACT THING, they are held to a similar regard SEXUALLY.

No, they are not.

If you really think the vagina and breasts are regarded the same thing sexually, then I truly feel sorry for whatever woman sleeps with you out of pity.

The female vagina is for contraception. The female breast is for nurturing offspring. They are not held at ALL in the same regard.

They are fetishized sexually.

Which, as I explained before, has far more to do with the taboo of women's breasts, than any biological factor. Women's legs were fetishized sexually at one point as well.

The difference is the vagina will always be a sexual organ since it is...wait for it...designed for sex. The breasts are not.

it still mentions receiving sexual satisfaction from breasts.

Yes, people can derive sexual satisfaction from breasts. They also derive sexual pleasure from the ears, the neck, the legs and the toes. Are those in the same class sexually as well?

You're completely wrong. 100%. Study an anatomy book.

Sex doesnt mean conception.

Uhh, that's the entire biological reason for having sex organs.

Again, you need to do some research on the human body.

Oh and if you cant grasp that concept ask a gay guy. The asshole doesnt have anything to do with conception yet they have sex with it and its illegal to show your ass.

Your lack of understanding of the human body and biological factors is mind-numbing.

http://www.cancerssociety.org/images/overy.jpg

So you DO realize why you sounded so stupid?

The ovaries are on the INSIDE of the female body. They are hidden from plain view. Your testicles, on the other hand, exist within a sac on the OUTSIDE of your body. A woman can never show her ovaries, no matter how much she might want. You can, however, drop your pants and pull out your testicles.

A woman CAN'T show her ovaries, she HAS to hide her ovaries. Thus make your previous statement:

If a woman doesnt have to hide her ovaries, I should be able to rock out with my balls out.

Completely and utterly ridiculous.

Society cares, thats why we've made it illegal.

And society cared in the 1800s, that is why they made it illegal for black people to vote.

Your "society" argument has no weight in a discussion on equality. Equality is a principle which cannot be degraded because "people want it". I don't care how many people want it, if it's discrimination, it is still discrimination.

No ones force feeding anything. Shit you have no idea what oppression is, do you?

Yes, oppression is when you tell one group of people they cannot do something that another group or groups can do.

Geez, kind of like telling one group they cannot go topless while another group can.

Thats it.

I figured you probably weren't even legally able to buy porn yet. Thank you for confirming it.

Shit who on earth uses "stupid boy" as an insult.

Someone who is arguing with a stupid boy? Like you?

Forget it, you're not 10, you're in your late 70's right? I guess I'm a ninconpoop too, right? If you want to believe that this:

http://free-textures.got3d.com/natu...ee-character-texture-references-woman-401.jpg

is anywhere close to this:

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/images/slavery.jpg

or this

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/slavery-abolition-granger.jpg

or this

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003296843/377214572_resisting_slavery_xlarge.png

thats your fucking fault.

Once again, Stupid Boy, you prove you clearly have no understanding of my argument.

I have already told you, multiple times, this law does not meet the severity of slavery. It's amazing how you keep forgetting I've said that multiple times.

What I said is that both slavery and this law are examples (of different severity, so you don't forget) of discrimination. They are examples of inequality of under the law. When you tell one group they cannot do the same as another, based upon the biological differences of the person, then it is not equal.

I honestly don't understand why you cannot understand such a simple concept. Well actually, I do, which is why I call you Stupid Boy.

Jesus Christ, every man in this country except you understands the sexual aspects of breasts.

And every intelligent person who reads this conversation would understand that I never once said men don't find women's breasts to be sexy. And those same intelligent people understand that I also said they are only found to be sexy because of the taboo which is placed upon showing them. And finally, those intelligent people would understand that, anatomically and biologically speaking, breasts and vaginas have NOTHING in common.

But you're not one of those intelligent people. Which is why your name is Stupid Boy.

 

[H33LTurn]

Yes, because you think men don't have breasts, when every other person in the world with a modicum of knowledge on the human body would tell you differently.

While men do have breasts, they lack the glands, size, and overall development that women have. Theres a significant difference between the two, and it can be visibly observed.

I go into female bathrooms all the time. Whenever we have drills, I HAVE to go into the female bathroom, to make sure all students are out of them. When the janitors go to replace female hygiene products and toilet paper in the women's bathroom, do they get arrested?

Men can go into women's bathrooms. You're just stupid if you think otherwise.

You are staff and therefore, like you said, HAVE TO go into the female's restroom. Its your job requirement. We're not talking about janitors or teachers. We're talking about men being able to use the female restroom facilities for the same purpose women use them, to relieve themselves, which is, in many states, illegal.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6809407_female-restroom-laws.html

Men having separate facilities from women is an example of the same "separate but equal" model used during the period of segregation against African Americans. Separate but equal was deemed to be not true equality, thats why different races can use the same restrooms, water fountains, etc. I dont truly feel this way, I'm just using the bullshit insensitive logic you're using when you compare wearing a t shirt to slavery.

Just not in North Carolina. In North Carolina, they choose to discriminate based upon gender.

Take it up with NC. I'm not a lawmaker.

Uhh, do you think John has never been the victim of racism? Considering I know John better than you do, I'll go ahead and say you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. Someone who experienced first hand, the true cruelty of racism such as beatings, imprisonment, and the denial of basic human rights like Al would be appalled to hear you compare the plight of African Americans to not being able to walk around with your tits out.

By the way, you keep talking about a t-shirt. This has nothing to do with a t-shirt. This has everything to do with equality. Completely different. As I've said before, if the law said both men and women could not show nipple, it would not be discriminatory. The fact they are singling out women is what makes it discriminatory.

No, its all about a t shirt. If one of your students was bitching and moaning because they didnt get to sit in the exact seat that they wanted to sit int you would be like "shit, its just a seat". Sly, its just a t shirt.

Oh, by the way, that Martin Luther King Jr. guy...yeah, why don't you go do some research on his opinion of women's rights. See what you find.

This is irrelevant to the point.

No, they are not.

If you really think the vagina and breasts are regarded the same thing sexually, then I truly feel sorry for whatever woman sleeps with you out of pity.

The female vagina is for contraception. The female breast is for nurturing offspring. They are not held at ALL in the same regard.

Maybe if you ask the pope thats what he'll say, but contraception and sex are not the exact same thing. One does not need to conceive to have sex and sexual organs are as much for pleasure as for contraception.

Which, as I explained before, has far more to do with the taboo of women's breasts, than any biological factor. Women's legs were fetishized sexually at one point as well.

And we moved away from the model of thinking because we changed as a society. When society is ready embrace female toplessness, I'll endorse it. What I wont do is endorse it when I know our society is too immature for that kind of development.

The difference is the vagina will always be a sexual organ since it is...wait for it...designed for sex. The breasts are not.

Unless you believe in God, and that part of the Bible that says to let a woman's breast satisfy you always.

Yes, people can derive sexual satisfaction from breasts. They also derive sexual pleasure from the ears, the neck, the legs and the toes. Are those in the same class sexually as well?

In terms of what our society regards as "private parts" (explicit sexual parts of the body), no. Ear porn would be regarded as taboo. Breast porn, however, is conventional is our society.

Uhh, that's the entire biological reason for having sex organs.

Again, you need to do some research on the human body.

To you maybe, but for anyone who uses a condom or a pill, sex is for pleasure.

Your lack of understanding of the human body and biological factors is mind-numbing.

I know, rather than refute my statement, you attack me personally instead. You're just oozing maturity here.

So you DO realize why you sounded so stupid?

The ovaries are on the INSIDE of the female body. They are hidden from plain view. Your testicles, on the other hand, exist within a sac on the OUTSIDE of your body. A woman can never show her ovaries, no matter how much she might want. You can, however, drop your pants and pull out your testicles.

A woman CAN'T show her ovaries, she HAS to hide her ovaries. Thus make your previous statement:


Completely and utterly ridiculous.

Technically, my testicles are covered by the ball sac. Its skin. And skin covers a woman's ovaries.

And society cared in the 1800s, that is why they made it illegal for black people to vote.

Your "society" argument has no weight in a discussion on equality. Equality is a principle which cannot be degraded because "people want it". I don't care how many people want it, if it's discrimination, it is still discrimination.

Except for the fact that black people wanted to vote but couldnt. There is no significant opposition to toplessness laws. As a matter of fact both men and women understand why they are necessary. They arent buggered by so called "equality".

Yes, oppression is when you tell one group of people they cannot do something that another group or groups can do.

"the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner" via Dictionary.com

When women consider it cruel to be told to wear something over their tits, I'll reconsider.

Geez, kind of like telling one group they cannot go topless while another group can.

You might want to brush up on the definition of indecent exposure. Maybe on your own you'll be able to understand why we have the laws we have.

I figured you probably weren't even legally able to buy porn yet. Thank you for confirming it.

Buy porn, lmaoo you're definitely in your late 70's.

Someone who is arguing with a stupid boy? Like you?

Except never have I, or most people heard the phrase "stupid boy" as an insult. Stupid yes, idiot, dumbass, asshole, but who the fuck uses stupid boy. I seriously question your mental stability. Thats the kind of insult a toddler would say.

Once again, Stupid Boy, you prove you clearly have no understanding of my argument.

I have already told you, multiple times, this law does not meet the severity of slavery. It's amazing how you keep forgetting I've said that multiple times.

What I said is that both slavery and this law are examples (of different severity, so you don't forget) of discrimination. They are examples of inequality of under the law. When you tell one group they cannot do the same as another, based upon the biological differences of the person, then it is not equal.

I honestly don't understand why you cannot understand such a simple concept. Well actually, I do, which is why I call you Stupid Boy.

You continuously referenced slavery, which I told you from the beginning was incredibly offensive, to defend your argument. Whether you explicitly stated that both instances were of the same severity, your intent was to paint siding with my argument as disturbing as siding with someone who supports slavery. Your continual denial of what is considered decent by today's standards is astounding. You're a troll, who can not comprehend what every heterosexual male on this planet can concerning female breasts. You literally have the entirety of society AGAINST you, but have someone painted yourself as the logical one, all while comparing slavery to wearing a t shirt. Like it or not, and make whatever mountain of a molehill you will of it, all we're asking women to do is to wear a shirt while in public. There is an entire populace of people who understand such a simple concept, but unfortunately you dont.

And every intelligent person who reads this conversation would understand that I never once said men don't find women's breasts to be sexy. And those same intelligent people understand that I also said they are only found to be sexy because of the taboo which is placed upon showing them. And finally, those intelligent people would understand that, anatomically and biologically speaking, breasts and vaginas have NOTHING in common.

But you're not one of those intelligent people. Which is why your name is Stupid Boy.

Except no one is speaking based on anatomy. We're talking on the basis of what a society considers to be sexually explicit, but you are out of line with billions of people throughout the planet, so theres really no point of drilling you with the same damn information post after post after post.

 

[Slyfox696]

While men do have breasts, they lack the glands, size, and overall development that women have. Theres a significant difference between the two, and it can be visibly observed.

No one has argued otherwise. Just like my arms and the arms of John Cena differ in the size and overall development.

Why do I say that? Because, like breasts, our arms are the same thing, even if developed to different levels. And why should John Cena get to show his arms but I can't? Well, he can and I can. But women can't show their breasts despite being the exact same as men's breasts, just at different stage of development.

You are staff and therefore, like you said, HAVE TO go into the female's restroom. Its your job requirement.

Which clearly shows it is NOT illegal.

We're not talking about janitors or teachers. We're talking about men being able to use the female restroom facilities for the same purpose women use them, to relieve themselves, which is, in many states, illegal.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6809407_female-restroom-laws.html

This is only the case, however, if the bathrooms are properly marked for men and, likewise, for women. Restrooms can be unisex as long as they are not labeled for one sex or the other, or are labeled for both men and women. In other words, as long as the bathroom isn't designated for one particular sex, then both men and women can use it.

Read more: Female Restroom Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6809407_female-restroom-laws.html#ixzz2N660qnay

Which is exactly what I said long ago.

Men having separate facilities from women is an example of the same "separate but equal" model used during the period of segregation against African Americans. Separate but equal was deemed to be not true equality, thats why different races can use the same restrooms, water fountains, etc. I dont truly feel this way, I'm just using the bullshit insensitive logic you're using when you compare wearing a t shirt to slavery.

But there is no "separate but equal" in this case. Men can show their nipples and women can not. There is no pretense to equality.

Once again, you lose.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh, you know John? You know what he's been through? You know his life history like I do?

No? Then you don't know what you're talking about. John agrees with me, not you.

No, its all about a t shirt. If one of your students was bitching and moaning because they didnt get to sit in the exact seat that they wanted to sit int you would be like "shit, its just a seat". Sly, its just a t shirt.

But if I let the boys participate in my class and told the girls they could not, it would be discrimination, not "it's just a class".

This has nothing to do with a t-shirt, this has to do with equality. Men can do something legally for which a woman is tried for a felony. The fact you keep thinking this is about a t-shirt shows you really are a Stupid Boy.

This is irrelevant to the point.

I agree completely, but it was your point. You brought up how a black civil rights leader would feel about gender equality. I'm just playing to your point.

Maybe if you ask the pope thats what he'll say

As will every doctor, scientist and anyone who has had Human Biology 101.

but contraception and sex are not the exact same thing.

Who said they were? What I said is the purpose of the vagina is conception/reproduction. Which is a simple and indisputable fact. Just because the vagina is used in other manners, it doesn't change its biological purpose.

And we moved away from the model of thinking because we changed as a society. When society is ready embrace female toplessness, I'll endorse it. What I wont do is endorse it when I know our society is too immature for that kind of development.

And our society wasn't ready for blacks to become equal, but we did it anyways.

When will you understand the views on society have no impact upon the concept of equality?

Unless you believe in God, and that part of the Bible that says to let a woman's breast satisfy you always.

Who, in their right mind, would believe a book of stories written (supposedly) thousands of years ago, in which the first few pages explain why woman should be considered inferior to man?

The Bible is incredibly sexist. It has no place in this discussion.

In terms of what our society regards as "private parts" (explicit sexual parts of the body), no. Ear porn would be regarded as taboo. Breast porn, however, is conventional is our society.

Again you talk about society. Again, you show your lack of understanding of very simply matters.

I don't give a rat's ass about society. Society has ZERO influence on the human anatomy. It has ZERO influence upon the philosophy of equality. Your insistence of referring back to society shows your inability to argue this in any way which makes sense.

Equality is not determined by society, it is a higher truth, unfettered by societal wishes. The human anatomy is a scientific study, exclusive from the opinion of humanity.

Quit talking about society, it is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this conversation. I'm not talking about society, never once have. I'm talking about something more concrete, and yet, something of a higher truth.

I know, rather than refute my statement, you attack me personally instead. You're just oozing maturity here.

I've refuted your statement numerous times. The fact you still don't understand it shows you are a Stupid Boy. I attack you personally because I HAVE explained it to you and you STILL don't get it.

Technically, my testicles are covered by the ball sac. Its skin. And skin covers a woman's ovaries.

Technically, I already said that. And technically, your clear implication is you should be able to expose the sac which contains your testicles.

But, again, your statement was that women get to show their ovaries. They don't. You don't understand the human body.

Except for the fact that black people wanted to vote but couldnt. There is no significant opposition to toplessness laws. As a matter of fact both men and women understand why they are necessary. They arent buggered by so called "equality".

Completely false. There are many women who are against the double standard of men being able to do something legally women cannot. Just because you're a sexist, doesn't mean there aren't women out there fighting this double standard.

"the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner" via Dictionary.com

When women consider it cruel to be told to wear something over their tits, I'll reconsider.

Read your definition again, and pay particular attention to the word I bolded and upsized.

You might want to brush up on the definition of indecent exposure. Maybe on your own you'll be able to understand why we have the laws we have.

Circular argument. It's only "indecent exposure" because the law says it is.

Buy porn, lmaoo you're definitely in your late 70's.

Stupid boy, I never once said I buy porn. What I said is you are not legally able to buy porn, clearly indicating your age is under 18. I don't smoke cigarettes, but I can legally buy them. I don't drink alcohol, but I can legally buy them.

You may watch free porn, but you couldn't legally buy it if you wanted to. That was my point, Stupid Boy.

Except never have I, or most people heard the phrase "stupid boy" as an insult.

What makes it such a great insult is that you are a child and stupid. So, it's not so much an insult as much as it is an accurate description of you.

You continuously referenced slavery,

Yes, because slavery was a practice of inequality.

which I told you from the beginning was incredibly offensive

Which I told you it was not, because I never equated the severity of this law to slavery, only the concept of inequality.

Stupid Boy, you really need to understand common sense arguments, especially when they are repeated over and over for your benefit.

Whether you explicitly stated that both instances were of the same severity

I explicitly stated they were NOT the same severity, but rather the same concept, which is that of inequality.

your intent was to paint siding with my argument as disturbing as siding with someone who supports slavery.

Completely and unequivocally false.

My intent was to show you that "majority opinion", which is essentially the crux of your argument in support for this law, is not a valid excuse for the inequality under law. It had nothing to do with you. It was all about showing the idea of "societal values" was a ridiculous way to support something which is inherently unequal.

Your continual denial of what is considered decent by today's standards is astounding.

And your lack of understanding that breasts are only considered "indecent" (which is absurd, for so many reasons) because we have made them so is perfectly in line with your level of intelligence, Stupid Boy.

You're a troll

No, I'm intelligent. That's why you're having trouble understanding me. I'm speaking of things far beyond your limited mental abilities. You don't understand abstract thought. You're incapable of seeing past today.

The problem is not with me, but rather with you.

who can not comprehend what every heterosexual male on this planet can concerning female breasts.

Which is that breasts are not the same class as the vagina? That men have breasts, despite you claiming they do not?

As a heterosexual man, I'm afraid I must ask you to not speak for all heterosexual men.

but have someone painted yourself as the logical one, all while comparing slavery to wearing a t shirt.

Except I didn't. But great strawman argument, truly. You attribute to me a position I never took (and repeatedly told you I never took), and then knock it down to feel like you've won the argument, all the while never addressing what I have ACTUALLY said.

But go ahead, clutch to your strawman. Because the moment you let it slip through your hands will be the moment your defeat will be total.

Like it or not, and make whatever mountain of a molehill you will of it, all we're asking women to do is to wear a shirt while in public.

But we're not asking men to do the same thing, which is the problem I have.

As I've said at least three times before, if this law required of men the same it requires of women, I would not call it a discriminatory law. Funny how you have never ONCE addressed me saying that. Probably because doing so would expose your argument for the stupidity everyone else already knows it is.

Except no one is speaking based on anatomy.

Yes, yes they are. I am, and I have been. Why? Because, just like I showed with the institution of slavery, "societal values" is never an appropriate substitution of inequality. We are discriminating against women simply because they are women. We're not asking men to cover their breasts, only women. Anatomically speaking, aside from extra fat and milk ducts, women's breasts are EXACTLY the same as men's breasts, and the differences I mentioned have fuck all to do with a legitimate reason to require a shirt.

We're talking on the basis of what a society considers to be sexually explicit

No, you are. And I keep trying to tell you why using society as your crutch is a waste of time in this discussion.

Just once, I'd actually like you to read AND comprehend what I have said. But you won't, because you are a Stupid Boy.

 

[H33LTurn]

No one has argued otherwise. Just like my arms and the arms of John Cena differ in the size and overall development.

Why do I say that? Because, like breasts, our arms are the same thing, even if developed to different levels. And why should John Cena get to show his arms but I can't? Well, he can and I can. But women can't show their breasts despite being the exact same as men's breasts, just at different stage of development.

And when I see countless pronos made about John Cena's arms, your analogy will make some sense.

Which clearly shows it is NOT illegal.

Depending on who you are. Every single man on the face of the earth isnt a janitor or a teacher.

Which is exactly what I said long ago.

No, its not what you said at all. As a matter of fact that quote proves my point. If a bathroom is marked for women, men cant enter it. Both genders can only enter unmarked or unisex bathrooms.

But there is no "separate but equal" in this case. Men can show their nipples and women can not. There is no pretense to equality.

There are several places where nudity is permitted.

Oh, you know John? You know what he's been through? You know his life history like I do?

Oh yes, who could ever forget how John was hosed down for wanting to go with you to the same bar. And when he saw his friends lynched. Oh, and when he was standing next to MLK on that balcony when he was shot (Jesse Jackson).

No? Then you don't know what you're talking about. John agrees with me, not you.

And the rest of society disagrees with both of you.

But if I let the boys participate in my class and told the girls they could not, it would be discrimination, not "it's just a class".

Of course, you would be preventing them from receiving a participation grade and voicing their ideas in the classroom. But if a kid didnt get to sit exactly where he wants to, just like some women cant go topless exactly where they want to, its not a big deal.

This has nothing to do with a t-shirt, this has to do with equality. Men can do something legally for which a woman is tried for a felony. The fact you keep thinking this is about a t-shirt shows you really are a Stupid Boy.

For the umpteenth time, I disagree with the law that makes female toplessness a felony.

I agree completely, but it was your point. You brought up how a black civil rights leader would feel about gender equality. I'm just playing to your point.

No, I didn't. I brought up the fact that any civil rights leader would be appalled to have the most disgusting of all human creations, racism, compared to wearing a t shirt.

As will every doctor, scientist and anyone who has had Human Biology 101.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say doctors are aware of what a condom is and are also aware of the sexual satisfaction of sex due to their knowledge of the human body.

Who said they were? What I said is the purpose of the vagina is conception/reproduction. Which is a simple and indisputable fact. Just because the vagina is used in other manners, it doesn't change its biological purpose.

I'm guessing that men spend their youth endlessly chasing pussy because they just cant wait to have a child then.

And our society wasn't ready for blacks to become equal, but we did it anyways.

When will you understand the views on society have no impact upon the concept of equality?

I've already explained to you what the Supreme Court is and how it decides what legally constitutes as equality in this country.

Who, in their right mind, would believe a book of stories written (supposedly) thousands of years ago, in which the first few pages explain why woman should be considered inferior to man?

The Bible is incredibly sexist. It has no place in this discussion.

A beautiful display of tolerance. Stay classy Sly.

Again you talk about society. Again, you show your lack of understanding of very simply matters.

I don't give a rat's ass about society. Society has ZERO influence on the human anatomy. It has ZERO influence upon the philosophy of equality. Your insistence of referring back to society shows your inability to argue this in any way which makes sense.

Equality is not determined by society, it is a higher truth, unfettered by societal wishes. The human anatomy is a scientific study, exclusive from the opinion of humanity.

Quit talking about society, it is COMPLETELY irrelevant to this conversation. I'm not talking about society, never once have. I'm talking about something more concrete, and yet, something of a higher truth.

Whether you like it or not, society has everything to do with this matter. What society doesnt find permissible becomes illegal. Society doesnt find female toplessness to be permissible, therefore its illegal. See how that works. I already told you, if you want to philosophize on equality, do it with someone who cares. I'm not interested.

I've refuted your statement numerous times. The fact you still don't understand it shows you are a Stupid Boy. I attack you personally because I HAVE explained it to you and you STILL don't get it.

Use whatever excuse you want, people who have civilized discussions dont denigrate themselves to personal insults. Its a sign of immaturity. The fact that you can not withhold from lambasting someone who simply has a differing point of view is inexcusable and it does more to hurt your point than help it.

Completely false. There are many women who are against the double standard of men being able to do something legally women cannot. Just because you're a sexist, doesn't mean there aren't women out there fighting this double standard.

Really, many? Because I have yet to see a rally for female toplessness. I havent seen any female toplessness activists out there handing flyers. Yes, there are some loons like yourself who support your marginalized point of view, and the rest of society keeps you on a tight leash because of it.

Read your definition again, and pay particular attention to the word I bolded and upsized.

And who, other than yourself and a couple of loons out there consider this an injustice? The larger portion of society considers it to be quite fair and our laws reflect this.

Circular argument. It's only "indecent exposure" because the law says it is.

And why does the law say it is? Because people consider it to be indecent. The majority of people.

Stupid boy, I never once said I buy porn. What I said is you are not legally able to buy porn, clearly indicating your age is under 18. I don't smoke cigarettes, but I can legally buy them. I don't drink alcohol, but I can legally buy them.

The fact that buying porn is where you went, shows how far back your mind is. Its ok sir, I know how annoying those kids with their walkmans and their dial up and their Lance Bass can be, but try not to get so cranky. I have some cranberry juice for you if you pipe down

You may watch free porn, but you couldn't legally buy it if you wanted to. That was my point, Stupid Boy.

You're a teacher but you have this incredible disdain for anyone younger than you. Oh the irony. I see why you're so miserable now.

What makes it such a great insult is that you are a child and stupid. So, it's not so much an insult as much as it is an accurate description of you.

Yes, because anyone under 18 is a child. Have you seen those 17 year old children driving with their permits. Oh the gall of those children

Yes, because slavery was a practice of inequality.

No ones disputing that

Which I told you it was not, because I never equated the severity of this law to slavery, only the concept of inequality.

Of course you dont find it offensive, those werent your family members getting whipped and picking cotton every day.

I explicitly stated they were NOT the same severity, but rather the same concept, which is that of inequality.

And I just said that regardless of whether you said that it is or it isnt your tactic was clear.

Completely and unequivocally false.

My intent was to show you that "majority opinion", which is essentially the crux of your argument in support for this law, is not a valid excuse for the inequality under law. It had nothing to do with you. It was all about showing the idea of "societal values" was a ridiculous way to support something which is inherently unequal.

Oh please, you're rehashing an old technique with a new face. Its Godwins law only that in the place of the Nazi's you've put slavery. That extreme comparison is supposed to play on the emotions of the people. If the slaves actually liked slavery, it wouldnt matter one bit whether there was equality or there wasnt. Since women are just ask capable of men of understanding why your point of view is fundamentally wrong and why toplessness must be outlawed, it doesnt matter if men get to take their shirts off or not. If the majority of people where using mob rule to hurt someone, I would obviously disagree. But the majority, men and women alike, are united in this effort because they feel its necessary and does not burden anyone.

And your lack of understanding that breasts are only considered "indecent" (which is absurd, for so many reasons) because we have made them so is perfectly in line with your level of intelligence, Stupid Boy.

I understand that perfectly. A penis is indecent for the same reason. Balls are too. Hell the human body is. Why dont we all just go outside but naked, fuck feelings and decency right?

No, I'm intelligent. That's why you're having trouble understanding me. I'm speaking of things far beyond your limited mental abilities. You don't understand abstract thought. You're incapable of seeing past today.

Oh man, abstract thought. You crack me up. Yeah, you're such a philosopher who's well ahead of his days. Thats why you're a teacher right? Because you have such a high IQ. No really, you're so smart that of all the routes you could take, you chose the one with the shitty pay and the constant sound of children bickering for 6 hours straight every day. Fuck that Nobel Prize they gave Obama, you certainly deserve it for your philosophy on female toplessness.

Which is that breasts are not the same class as the vagina? That men have breasts, despite you claiming they do not?

MEN. HAVE. BREASTS.

As a heterosexual man, I'm afraid I must ask you to not speak for all heterosexual men.

No you definitely should. You, the one who completely disagrees with the majority of men, should speak for them.

Except I didn't. But great strawman argument, truly. You attribute to me a position I never took (and repeatedly told you I never took), and then knock it down to feel like you've won the argument, all the while never addressing what I have ACTUALLY said.

But go ahead, clutch to your strawman. Because the moment you let it slip through your hands will be the moment your defeat will be total.

"The moment your defeat will be total". A little epic for a discussion on a wrestling forum dont you think. Stop quoting your comic books grandpa.

But we're not asking men to do the same thing, which is the problem I have.

As I've said at least three times before, if this law required of men the same it requires of women, I would not call it a discriminatory law. Funny how you have never ONCE addressed me saying that. Probably because doing so would expose your argument for the stupidity everyone else already knows it is.

Yeah, of course everyone thinks my argument is stupid. Thats why the majority of them support it. Thats why we have a law in place that is practically undisputed. Because its stupid. And everyone except you and whoever agrees with you is smart.

Yes, yes they are. I am, and I have been. Why? Because, just like I showed with the institution of slavery, "societal values" is never an appropriate substitution of inequality. We are discriminating against women simply because they are women. We're not asking men to cover their breasts, only women. Anatomically speaking, aside from extra fat and milk ducts, women's breasts are EXACTLY the same as men's breasts, and the differences I mentioned have fuck all to do with a legitimate reason to require a shirt.

Like I said, go philosophize about anatomy with someone who gives a fuck. Society and anatomy are two different things. Breasts dont legislate laws, society does.

No, you are. And I keep trying to tell you why using society as your crutch is a waste of time in this discussion.

Just once, I'd actually like you to read AND comprehend what I have said. But you won't, because you are a Stupid Boy.

Or perhaps, you dont like society's view because it disagrees with you, and you know we cant have that. God forbid if someone disagrees with you.

 

[Slyfox696]

And when I see countless pronos made about John Cena's arms, your analogy will make some sense.


Depending on who you are. Every single man on the face of the earth isnt a janitor or a teacher.



No, its not what you said at all. As a matter of fact that quote proves my point. If a bathroom is marked for women, men cant enter it. Both genders can only enter unmarked or unisex bathrooms.

There are several places where nudity is permitted.




Oh yes, who could ever forget how John was hosed down for wanting to go with you to the same bar. And when he saw his friends lynched. Oh, and when he was standing next to MLK on that balcony when he was shot (Jesse Jackson).


And the rest of society disagrees with both of you.

Of course, you would be preventing them from receiving a participation grade and voicing their ideas in the classroom. But if a kid didnt get to sit exactly where he wants to, just like some women cant go topless exactly where they want to, its not a big deal.


For the umpteenth time, I disagree with the law that makes female toplessness a felony.

No, I didn't. I brought up the fact that any civil rights leader would be appalled to have the most disgusting of all human creations, racism, compared to wearing a t shirt.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say doctors are aware of what a condom is and are also aware of the sexual satisfaction of sex due to their knowledge of the human body.


I'm guessing that men spend their youth endlessly chasing pussy because they just cant wait to have a child then.


I've already explained to you what the Supreme Court is and how it decides what legally constitutes as equality in this country.


A beautiful display of tolerance. Stay classy Sly.


Whether you like it or not, society has everything to do with this matter. What society doesnt find permissible becomes illegal. Society doesnt find female toplessness to be permissible, therefore its illegal. See how that works. I already told you, if you want to philosophize on equality, do it with someone who cares. I'm not interested.

Use whatever excuse you want, people who have civilized discussions dont denigrate themselves to personal insults. Its a sign of immaturity. The fact that you can not withhold from lambasting someone who simply has a differing point of view is inexcusable and it does more to hurt your point than help it.


Really, many? Because I have yet to see a rally for female toplessness. I havent seen any female toplessness activists out there handing flyers. Yes, there are some loons like yourself who support your marginalized point of view, and the rest of society keeps you on a tight leash because of it.


And who, other than yourself and a couple of loons out there consider this an injustice? The larger portion of society considers it to be quite fair and our laws reflect this.


And why does the law say it is? Because people consider it to be indecent. The majority of people.


The fact that buying porn is where you went, shows how far back your mind is. Its ok sir, I know how annoying those kids with their walkmans and their dial up and their Lance Bass can be, but try not to get so cranky. I have some cranberry juice for you if you pipe down


You're a teacher but you have this incredible disdain for anyone younger than you. Oh the irony. I see why you're so miserable now.


Yes, because anyone under 18 is a child. Have you seen those 17 year old children driving with their permits. Oh the gall of those children


No ones disputing that


Of course you dont find it offensive, those werent your family members getting whipped and picking cotton every day.



And I just said that regardless of whether you said that it is or it isnt your tactic was clear.


Oh please, you're rehashing an old technique with a new face. Its Godwins law only that in the place of the Nazi's you've put slavery. That extreme comparison is supposed to play on the emotions of the people. If the slaves actually liked slavery, it wouldnt matter one bit whether there was equality or there wasnt. Since women are just ask capable of men of understanding why your point of view is fundamentally wrong and why toplessness must be outlawed, it doesnt matter if men get to take their shirts off or not. If the majority of people where using mob rule to hurt someone, I would obviously disagree. But the majority, men and women alike, are united in this effort because they feel its necessary and does not burden anyone.


I understand that perfectly. A penis is indecent for the same reason. Balls are too. Hell the human body is. Why dont we all just go outside but naked, fuck feelings and decency right?


Oh man, abstract thought. You crack me up. Yeah, you're such a philosopher who's well ahead of his days. Thats why you're a teacher right? Because you have such a high IQ. No really, you're so smart that of all the routes you could take, you chose the one with the shitty pay and the constant sound of children bickering for 6 hours straight every day. Fuck that Nobel Prize they gave Obama, you certainly deserve it for your philosophy on female toplessness.





MEN. HAVE. BREASTS.


No you definitely should. You, the one who completely disagrees with the majority of men, should speak for them.


"The moment your defeat will be total". A little epic for a discussion on a wrestling forum dont you think. Stop quoting your comic books grandpa.


Yeah, of course everyone thinks my argument is stupid. Thats why the majority of them support it. Thats why we have a law in place that is practically undisputed. Because its stupid. And everyone except you and whoever agrees with you is smart.


Like I said, go philosophize about anatomy with someone who gives a fuck. Society and anatomy are two different things. Breasts dont legislate laws, society does.


Or perhaps, you dont like society's view because it disagrees with you, and you know we cant have that. God forbid if someone disagrees with you.

Truth be told, I barely read this post. I'm not even going to bother quoting and replying anymore, as you're obviously too stupid to bother listening to anything but you're own ridiculousness. I will, however, comment on these two things:

A beautiful display of tolerance. Stay classy Sly.

The book of Genesis is incredibly sexist. "Tolerance" has nothing to do with it, the book of Genesis very clearly establishes women to be inferior to men. Read it yourself. Note how God creates everything from nothing...except for women, women owe their existence to man. And who is responsible for sin in the world? Eve, the woman. Not only was Eve the original one deceived by the serpent (indicating a lower intelligence), she also was the one responsible for Adam's fall from God's graces. The woman, who owes her life to a man, is responsible for original sin, mortality and is clearly established as the lesser of two intellects.

The book of Genesis is incredibly sexist.

No, I didn't. I brought up the fact that any civil rights leader would be appalled to have the most disgusting of all human creations, racism, compared to wearing a t shirt.

And this right here is why I call you Stupid Boy.

Why do you refer to slavery as "racism", but this law as a t-shirt? Why isn't slavery "racism" and this law "sexism"? This is the point I have been trying to get across to you from the very beginning.

Racism is terrible, we agree completely on that. But sexism is terrible too. The fact you're dismissing sexism as a "t-shirt" shows either how sexist you are, or how stupid you are to see the similarity.

Everything in this thread comes down to this very basic idea. While it blows my mind at your incredible lack of understanding of the human body, and while it frustrates me you don't seem to understand society has nothing to do with equality, this entire discussion comes down to this.

Slavery was racist. This law is sexist. Are they equal in severity? No, and I've specifically said they are not. But, if you consider racism bad, then you should consider sexism bad. And just as racism is wrong, sexism is wrong.

You cannot deny this law is sexist. You cannot deny this law targets only one gender, not both. The only question is whether you agree with sexism in limited forms or not. I do not. I believe in total equality.


EDIT: I just now read what you said about me being a teacher. While I could explain to you my college readiness test scores were higher than my cousins who became a doctor and a lawyer, I'm not going to (well, I guess I just did). I'm not going to because there's no reason for you to believe me and I'm certainly not going to waste time proving it to a dumbass like you. However, the fact you don't understand that working a job you love, something you've wanted to do your entire life is incredibly important, shows just how immature you are. Yeah, the pay isn't great, but the kids are not brats. I LOVE working with the kids and it is what makes me happy. Your suggestion intelligence is related to job description is not only erroneous, but incredibly immature.

 

[H33LTurn]

Truth be told, I didn't read this entire thign. I'm not even going to bother quoting and replying anymore, as you're obviously too stupid to bother listening to anything but you're own ridiculousness. Except for these two things:

Why bother, its not like you've been listening to what I've been saying at all.

The book of Genesis is incredibly sexist. "Tolerance" has nothing to do with it, the book of Genesis very clearly establishes women to be inferior to men. Read it yourself. Note how God creates everything from nothing...except for women, women owe their existence to man. And who is responsible for sin in the world? Eve, the woman. Not only was Eve the original one deceived by the serpent (indicating a lower intelligence), she also was the one responsible for Adam's fall from God's graces. The woman, who owes her life to a man, is responsible for original sin, mortality and is clearly established as the lesser of two intellects.

The book of Genesis is incredibly sexist.

I'm not interested in getting into a theological argument right now but regarding original sin, the punishments were that women would experience the pain of childbirth and men would have to work with the sweat of their brow. Both Adam and Eve were held accountable for their actions: Eve for tempting, and Adam for allowing himself to fall into temptation.

And this right here is why I call you Stupid Boy.

Why do you refer to slavery as "racism", but this law as a t-shirt? Why isn't slavery "racism" and this law "sexism"? This is the point I have been trying to get across to you from the very beginning.

Racism is terrible, we agree completely on that. But sexism is terrible too. The fact you're dismissing sexism as a "t-shirt" shows either how sexist you are, or how stupid you are to see the similarity.

Everything in this thread comes down to this very basic idea. Why it blows my mind at your incredible lack of understanding of the human body, and while it frustrates me you don't seem to understand society has nothing to do with equality, this entire discussion comes down to this.

Slavery was racist. This law is sexist. Are they equal in severity? No, and I've specifically said they are not. But, if you consider racism bad, then you should consider sexism bad. And just as racism is wrong, sexism is wrong.

You cannot deny this law is sexist. You cannot deny this law targets only one gender, not both. The only question is whether you agree with sexism in limited forms or not. I do not. I believe in total equality.

[/QUOTE]
I'm not denying that this law targets one gender but not the other. The why is what is hard for you to understand. And you wont understand it, because to understand it you would have to acknowledge the opinions of millions and billions of people, whom you yourself said you didn't care about. To me thats not a hard concept, and while toplessness laws allegedly discriminate against women and oppress them, women hardly make a fuss about them, partly because they dont have the desire to expose themselves to strangers, dont want their children seeing other women nude from the waste up, and understand that if they desire to be topless outdoors there are specific places where that is permissible.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm not interested in getting into a theological argument right now but regarding original sin, the punishments were that women would experience the pain of childbirth and men would have to work with the sweat of their brow. Both Adam and Eve were held accountable for their actions: Eve for tempting, and Adam for allowing himself to fall into temptation.

They may have been held equally accountable, but only one of them was responsible. The woman.

The Book of Genesis is sexist. The Bible is sexist. The Bible has no place in this discussion.

I'm not denying that this law targets one gender but not the other.

Then call it sexist. Which is what it is.

And you wont understand it, because to understand it you would have to acknowledge the opinions of millions and billions of people, whom you yourself said you didn't care about.

Again, I come back to that society does not matter when discussing equality. Just like when the majority of society thought of black people as inferior didn't matter, the "billions" of people (which, by the way, I disagree with completely, but asking you to source anything would be a waste of time) who may think this law is okay doesn't matter.

Slavery was racist. This law is sexist. Whether people are in favor of the law has no bearing on the fact it is sexist.

To me thats not a hard concept

I imagine, to you, most things are hard to understand.

while toplessness laws allegedly discriminate against women and oppress them

There is no allegedly about it, that's exactly what they do.

women hardly make a fuss about them

Some women do, a loud fuss even. Why should their equality be marginalized?

 

[H33LTurn]

They may have been held equally accountable, but only one of them was responsible. The woman.

The Book of Genesis is sexist. The Bible is sexist. The Bible has no place in this discussion.

She was responsible, because she grabbed the apple but whatever. You dont want to talk about the Bible, I dont want to talk about the Bible, lets drop it then.

Then call it sexist. Which is what it is.

Sexism is a prejudice against someone based on their gender. Theres nothing prejudice about understanding what breasts mean to people in the 21st century.

Again, I come back to that society does not matter when discussing equality. Just like when the majority of society thought of black people as inferior didn't matter, the "billions" of people (which, by the way, I disagree with completely, but asking you to source anything would be a waste of time) who may think this law is okay doesn't matter.

Slavery was racist. This law is sexist. Whether people are in favor of the law has no bearing on the fact it is sexist.

You're creating an outrage where there isnt one. Both responsible men and women understand that this law is necessary. Women are willing to give up the right to be topless because they realize the effects of that. That is largely different from a group of people being sold, taken to a foreign land against their will, and enslaved for 500 years.

I imagine, to you, most things are hard to understand.

Only when you're the one mentioning them.

There is no allegedly about it, that's exactly what they do.

According to you.

Some women do, a loud fuss even. Why should their equality be marginalized?

Just because a minority is loud, it doesnt mean that their point of view is worth addressing. Theres a group of people making a loud fuss about making a national holiday for Randy Savage. Of course those people are batshit crazy so their opinions dont matter.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sexism is a prejudice against someone based on their gender. Theres nothing prejudice about understanding what breasts mean to people in the 21st century.

Even you aren't buying your load of shit anymore.

You already acquiesced it was prejudiced against women. You said it here:

I'm not denying that this law targets one gender but not the other.

You're creating an outrage where there isnt one.

Sexism should be an outrage.

Both responsible men and women understand that this law is necessary.

I would LOVE to hear why this law is "necessary". Keep in mind the difference between the terms "desired" and "necessary".

Please tell me how this sexist law is necessary.

Only when you're the one mentioning them.

So you agree your level of intelligence is far beneath mine. At least you finally have understood something.

According to you.

And the definitions of the words themselves.

Just because a minority is loud, it doesnt mean that their point of view is worth addressing.

You're right, after all, blacks were a minority, so why bother addressing the inequality which blacks were subjected to?

Again, your words fall flat.

Theres a group of people making a loud fuss about making a national holiday for Randy Savage. Of course those people are batshit crazy so their opinions dont matter.

I agree.

Then again, they're not arguing for equality. I, and many others, are. Big difference.

 

[H33LTurn]

Even you aren't buying your load of shit anymore.

You already acquiesced it was prejudiced against women. You said it here:

Yes, and I'll share that load with all the other mentally stable people who get my point. You and the feminist lobby can bitch and moan, because tomorrow morning will just be another day where a woman cant walk out her door with her tits out. See heres the thing with lobbying: you get your 15 minutes of fame, you satisfy your messiah complex, but at the end of the day the adults make the laws.

Sexism should be an outrage.

Hmm, telling women they should be mad about something they're not mad about. Yeah, and I'm the one force feeding people.

I would LOVE to hear why this law is "necessary". Keep in mind the difference between the terms "desired" and "necessary".

Im not even going to go into this one. Your mother didnt raise you to understand what behavior is obscene and why its wrong. I'm not going to to that for you now.

So you agree your level of intelligence is far beneath mine. At least you finally have understood something.

No, I admitt that you're talking complete nonsense, so I, like MOST people, do not understand your point of view on this issue.

And the definitions of the words themselves.

Nope, because wearing a shirt is in no way shape or form a burden or cruel punishment.

You're right, after all, blacks were a minority, so why bother addressing the inequality which blacks were subjected to?

Again, your words fall flat.

A minority being cruely punished for 500 years? they deserve to be heard. A couple of people who want to be rebels, nope. The thing about the toplessness lobby is that its all about attention. Women know how men react to their breasts. They want to start a ruckus for the sake of starting a ruckus, and I'm having no part in that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, and I'll share that load with all the other mentally stable people who get my point. You and the feminist lobby can bitch and moan, because tomorrow morning will just be another day where a woman cant walk out her door with her tits out.

You've clearly lost. You already admitted it was a sexist law. It's prejudiced against women. You're trying to reframe the issue (for some unknown issue), but you've lost.

It's a sexist law, no matter how you wish to trivialize the truth.

You lose.

but at the end of the day the adults make the laws.

So says Stupid Boy, the child who cannot legally buy cigarettes.

Im not even going to go into this one. Your mother didnt raise you to understand what behavior is obscene and why its wrong. I'm not going to to that for you now.

No no, please do. Please explain why the breasts are such an offense to nature this law was NECESSARY.

I'll wait, Stupid Boy.

Nope, because wearing a shirt is in no way shape or form a burden or cruel punishment.

But it is unjust to require women and not men. Which was part of the definition. You're way too young for your memory to be failing you already, Stupid Boy.

The thing about the toplessness lobby is that its all about attention. Women know how men react to their breasts. They want to start a ruckus for the sake of starting a ruckus, and I'm having no part in that.

And NOW we can to the REAL reason this law was enacted.

This law was not enacted for any of the reasons you mentioned, this law was enacted to "shut women up", to remove one of the ways women have their political voices heard. This is entirely about suppressing an effective form of political dissent.

You see, I've known this all along. And I could have told you early, but I seriously doubt you even understand it now.

So here's the deal. You're obviously far too stupid to understand how you have torpedoed your own argument. You clearly don't know the definitions of words. So, since this thread long ago outlived its usefulness, and any hope I had of you no longer being stupid is effectively extinguished, I'm going to close this thread.

I wish I could say it's been fun, Stupid Boy, but the fact is it saddens me that people as dumb as you actually exist. Go have fun with the other children now, Stupid Boy.