Topless

But dont you think the only reason breasts are so sexual is because we're all almost programmed to believe they are. If everyone thought of breasts as just a body part thats there no one would even associate it to sex. At least in my opinion.

 

One of my favorite professors said once, "Not all laws are good, and bad laws can and should be changed."

I think with enough momentum behind it topfree equality can become a standard, I don't see that we couldn't overcome opposition.

A lot of anti-topfreedom legislation comes from the state and fed level, even if locals don't object... I.e. in Truro, MA there is a fabulous beach a section of which is designated unofficially CO. The town is aware of it and while they don't advertise it, the residents consider it a "local attraction" and speak openly about it if asked.

Sadly the beach itself is fed property, and therefore asinine park rangers show up every so often and hand out tickets to nude folk.

 

Sure, I agree that could be true--though we can't prove it either way. Maybe we are "all almost programmed", but I see no signs that we can reverse it. I claim that any changes we make in the way we act have to be made based on the way we live and think right now, not the way we theoretically could in some other world. Rather than trying to define sexual body parts as non-sexual, we could try to change the way we react to them.

So we could think about bare breasts the same way we could think about bare crotches. Sure, that's a sexual part of the body (at least, a lot of people think so). But so what, do we have to go berserk if we see those parts? If we want to, we can be calm and polite, and accept that yes, we have genitals and women have breasts, and men have nipples too if that's worth considering. Use them when it's time to use them and the rest of the time, just allow them to exist. What's wrong with that?

 

A tempest in a teapot. Our legislators don't pursue this because they have more important things to worry about. It's not like there aren't plenty of places to be nude, for heaven's sake. I go topless in my backyard all the time. It's not a big deal.

And I had to chuckle at those of you who don't think female breasts are sexual ... then why do you zero in on them during foreplay? ... LOL

Tell most women that their nipples aren't involved in sexual feelings and see how they laugh. To think that the only erogenous zones on the body are the genitals is absurd. Women have even been known to have orgasms while breastfeeding. And I've yet to encounter a man who didn't have sexual feelings in his nipples, either.

And please ... enough with the bitching about religion. You wild-eyed, ranting anti-religious fanatics are scarier than the religious fanatics. Religion is not the cause of everything, you know.

It's just a simple fact ... the female breast is required to be covered in public in most modern societies on earth, not just the Christian ones. I don't know why it is, but who cares? It just is.

Human civilizations decided long ago that certain parts of the body are taboo in public. Is there a rational reason for it? Probably not ... or if there ever was one, it's long gone now. But so what? Is it really worth raising a fuss over it? If you want to be nude, or see other nude people, there are places you can do that.

 

Legislators pursue what their constituents ask them to pursue. At least in theory.

Rewind a few decades, and discover that it used to be illegal for men to appear topless on beaches and in public in general. A photograph of a bare-chested man was nearly as scandalous as a photograph of a bare-breasted woman. That sure changed, didn't it?

Human civilizations decided that breasts must be covered long ago? Pshaw. There are societies where female breasts are not considered taboo at all. Rewind back to around Renaissance period, and discover that bare breasts were actually less scandalous than an exposed ankle. It's Victorianism that ruined it for all of us

It doesn't take much to overturn an obsolete law either. Where there's a will...

 

No, that's not what I said.

I said two things ... breasts are required to be covered in most modern societies, and that all civilizations have made certain body parts taboo. You combined both statements to make a third statement, which has quite a different meaning.

You're right, and I'm not saying that these taboos aren't obsolete. As I said, if there ever was a rational reason for them, the reasons are long gone now.

My point wasn't about obsolescence, it was ... is this really a priority? There are plenty of places where you can be nude. Making a fuss over public exposure of body parts is a waste of time. Pick the battles that matter.

 

I disagree. Firstly, there aren't "plenty of places where you can be nude", unless you count private residence. "Unofficially CO" beaches are still harassed by law enforcement, and "officially CO" beaches are not at all commonplace.

Mind you I'm talking about the US, so if you live elsewhere, this may not apply.

And why NOT pick this battle? Now of course, it's not going to solve world hunger or bring world peace, but there's a whole slew of issues that can also be considered "small stuff".

To me personally, this is about counteracting the prudish outlook on life that has become so dominant recently. I think it's a worthy enough battle.

 

Well, ok. But you'll lose it. Why not pick a battle that gives you a chance of accomplishing something? That's all I'm saying.

I appreciate your right to decide what constitutes "worthy" to you.

But remember that because someone doesn't care to go topless in public, that doesn't make them a "prude".

I'll bow out now.

 

I prefer the "glass is half full and there's always a chance" attitude.

It certainly does not!

However, telling others not to go topless in public certainly does.

 

Recently, there was an article on the Nerve.com website written by a woman who took advantage of a new law in New York (state? city? don't know) that makes it OK to go topless. She did it in Central Park, I believe, and she got away with it, altho when she went to the restroom some woman told her that she had to cover up in there (wtf?) or else she could get a summons.

 

i know there is something in Texas that still encourages women to go around topless so the native Americans can tell you are something (don't remember what (it was on a random law page))

 

i believe the breast can be both.... when normally goin about day to day activities as a nudist or even topless in the middle of town then that wouldnt be sexual i see it as.... but when you actually are having sexual relations then the breast can be deemed as sexual but only if having sex...

thats the way i see it any way

 

I think breasts are absolutely sexual and the reason for it is this: they're beautiful. Just like a good pair of legs are beautiful. Legs are exposed and very commonplace, but people still find them attractive. Someone said men going topless isn't sexual. Like hell it isn't. Men's chests look good too, as do their stomachs. Commonplace body parts, but still sexual and women that look at topless men aren't thinking that it's like looking at a hand, but that they look mighty fine.
I don't think women should go topless, unless of course they want to, and here's my reason. Breasts are heavy, especially if they're large. If you don't hold them up they will sag. I almost never go without a bra. I had D's before I lost weight and now I have C's. My breasts look like the shit and it's because I wear a bra. If I didn't, they'd be down to my knees by the time I was 40.
I can see women wanting to go topless sometimes. But erasing the bra from our society will never happen. We might as well encourage men to burn their jockstraps.

 

Breasts are as feminine as you can get, but they don't perform a sexual function, except for their attraction to men. Breasts are sexy; no doubt, but they don't perform any reproductive functions. Possibly, since breasts are quite attractive to men, they do play a parallel sexual function.

I have to admit, that when I see a pair of large, shapely breasts out in the sunshine, I do get more aroused than I can say. That, in turn, makes me ready to become ready for sex. So, in that sense, breasts can be sexual in their appearance.

All I need now are some volunteers to test out my theory.

 

Sooo, what about the clitoris? That has no reproductive function.
And I beg to differ, a lot of women find it very arousing to have their nipples stimulated.

 

I like to be the one to make a woman feel aroused by stimulating them. I believe that breasts can be a prelude to sex, but you don't have to do anything to them to get pregnant. Breasts are wonderfully sexy, but their function is for after pregnancy.

The clit makes sex much more desirable for a woman, so it serves a sexual function, but not a mandatory one. Fortunately in today's world, stimulating the clit can be or ought to be standard practice whether there is penetrating sex or not. I love to stimulate my wife's clit very often; I enjoy her moans of pleasure and am gratified she experiences pleasure.

We experience enough stress and anxiety in our daily life, so I make sure my woman gets all the pleasure she wants.

We live in the nude at our home, and seeing body parts is a normal daily experience. When my kids get old enough date long term, they will already know about clits, nipples, and other parts of a woman that please her. They will have seen my penis hundreds of times. We do the teaching at home about sexual parts, and show our body parts to the kids so they can see what they look like. They have no hangups at all about sexual parts.

We emphasize the role of the female breast at home, both in providing milk, and causing arousal in men. We teach our young son to respect a woman's body, and he is accepting that quite well.

I should apologize for using the topless thread, as my family is all nude, and not topless, but the wife and daughters could be said to be topless, in a manner of speech. They just happen to be bottomless, too.

 

Well yes, I think everybody knows this. But I've heard that people don't always have sex for reproductive purposes.

 

I guess we're now getting to semantics. Breasts for me can be pre-cursors for sex, along with a woman's other features, including mannerisms. I guess I was at the beginning of this thread going more for the clinical definition of breasts, as opposed to the whole sexual concept.

 

We had a similar discussion on the topic of toplessness and topfreedom in another thread a little while back... and even though the other thread is newer, there is some insight on this topic as well... and I don't need to repost my views on it here, since I already did so there...

Wiggling somewhat lazy toes,

~*Ganesha*~

 

girls should definitely go topless i think