Who should decide what people choose to wear?

[shelly2inme]

Recently there was an article in the news about the legality or illegality of women being "allowed" to go topless in public. Men of course can do this in most parts of the world. It is "legal" for men to do that. But for women it is up to those who make laws to decide what a woman can wear. How do these law makers obtain the great wisdom to know what I should wear and where I can wear it? The legal aspect tends to be based on whether or not a women's breasts are "decent." How should that make me feel if some group of people declare that my breasts are indecent? What say you?

 

[Diagram]

On principle I think it's up to each individual to decide for themselves what to wear. I do wonder if maybe society could do with a bit more empathy and change in norms, in order to facilitate the circumstances where that kind of lawlessness wouldn't immediatly descend into conflicts and iffy behaviour.

 

[Blue4196]

Recently there was an article in the news about the legality or illegality of women being "allowed" to go topless in public. Men of course can do this in most parts of the world. It is "legal" for men to do that. But for women it is up to those who make laws to decide what a woman can wear. How do these law makers obtain the great wisdom to know what I should wear and where I can wear it? The legal aspect tends to be based on whether or not a women's breasts are "decent." How should that make me feel if some group of people declare that my breasts are indecent? What say you?

1st off, I am 100% sure that you are proud of the fact that women have some kind of class and don't WANT to be showing their shit in public in most cases.

 

[Blue4196]

1st off, I am 100% sure that you are proud of the fact that women have some kind of class and don't WANT to be showing their shit in public in most cases.

Men don't give a sloppy fuck if we wear anything at all, or shower, or anything else. Yes. Women's hygiene and appearance is expected to be a much higher level. You are more than welcome to be like us Neanderthal fucks that turn our underwear inside out if they are dirty.

 

[Blue4196]

Recently there was an article in the news about the legality or illegality of women being "allowed" to go topless in public. Men of course can do this in most parts of the world. It is "legal" for men to do that. But for women it is up to those who make laws to decide what a woman can wear. How do these law makers obtain the great wisdom to know what I should wear and where I can wear it? The legal aspect tends to be based on whether or not a women's breasts are "decent." How should that make me feel if some group of people declare that my breasts are indecent? What say you?

And to answer your question. I should be the one that decides what women wear and when and how they wear it. No tattoos, no crazy piercings. Or wild hairdos etc. You should be really happy that someone like me isn't actually making the decisions for you...because I would.

 

[HornyPaul]

As with any social/political discourse - not just in America, but the world over, one can always come back to the old saying "It's great to be the executioner, but it sucks being the executed!"

I think no matter what your country's politics are, if you're spending time regulating what various sexes, races or religions can or cannot do, you're living in a failed state.

I think progress, education, health care, facts, truth, reality - and infrastructure are the best places to improve life for all with no need to regulate what any person can or cannot do.

This whole discussion is ridiculous to say the least. In America, we want to outlaw Drag Queen Story Hour because some of the regulators want to protect our children.

Yet when the fact that the leading cause of children's death is due to being shot by a gun, those same regulators are quieter than crickets. And not one child has died at a Drag Queen Story Hour!

But having said all that, maybe I should invest in prisons. Since we want to fill them with women wanting abortions and going topless, maybe I could make a good return on my investment.

 

[hornyxslut]

You know whats ridiculous?

As with any social/political discourse - not just in America, but the world over, one can always come back to the old saying "It's great to be the executioner, but it sucks being the executed!"

I think no matter what your country's politics are, if you're spending time regulating what various sexes, races or religions can or cannot do, you're living in a failed state.

I think progress, education, health care, facts, truth, reality - and infrastructure are the best places to improve life for all with no need to regulate what any person can or cannot do.

This whole discussion is ridiculous to say the least. In America, we want to outlaw Drag Queen Story Hour because some of the regulators want to protect our children.

Yet when the fact that the leading cause of children's death is due to being shot by a gun, those same regulators are quieter than crickets. And not one child has died at a Drag Queen Story Hour!

But having said all that, maybe I should invest in prisons. Since we want to fill them with women wanting abortions and going topless, maybe I could make a good return on my investment.

You know what's ridiculous? Catfishing people on a sex site.

HornyPaul is fake and using photos online. Be careful!!

Google Connor Dawson on onlyfans or insta.

 

[BrettRP]

I think its a fairly straightforward question of what people do or don't want to see. If a woman is dressed provocatively, or topless, it's important to note that some people want to see that and some people don't. So in public spaces women should be required to cover up and dress modestly. But then there should private places where women can go and dress as slutty as they want. Then if a person is walking around in a public place, there is no chance of seeing something that that person does not want to see. But if that same person WANTS to see that sort of thing, then there are private places where a person can go, and be exposed to that sort of thing on purpose, instead of accidentally seeing something they do or don't want to see.

 

[Diagram]

I think its a fairly straightforward question of what people do or don't want to see. If a woman is dressed provocatively, or topless, it's important to note that some people want to see that and some people don't. So in public spaces women should be required to cover up and dress modestly. But then there should private places where women can go and dress as slutty as they want. Then if a person is walking around in a public place, there is no chance of seeing something that that person does not want to see. But if that same person WANTS to see that sort of thing, then there are private places where a person can go, and be exposed to that sort of thing on purpose, instead of accidentally seeing something they do or don't want to see.

Who decides what's modest? Does the same apply to men? What if I think men's shins are "slutty"? Would men then not be allowed shorts in public?

 

[BrettRP]

Who decides what's modest? Does the same apply to men? What if I think men's shins are "slutty"? Would men then not be allowed shorts in public?

We use the same standards that we always have. Anything showing an excessive amount of the "private parts" of a person shouldn't be allowed in public. And if you're going to argue that men's shins are slutty, then you're purposefully over complicating the issue. It begs the immediate question: if modesty is sometimes difficult to define, does that mean that we should throw out the concept of modesty altogether? Should we just allow people to dress as revealing as they want, and even let them walk around naked? How does going the other way with it make modesty easier to define, or even solve the issue?

 

[Diagram]

We use the same standards that we always have. Anything showing an excessive amount of the "private parts" of a person shouldn't be allowed in public. And if you're going to argue that men's shins are slutty, then you're purposefully over complicating the issue. It begs the immediate question: if modesty is sometimes difficult to define, does that mean that we should throw out the concept of modesty altogether? Should we just allow people to dress as revealing as they want, and even let them walk around naked? How does going the other way with it make modesty easier to define, or even solve the issue?

If you read my reply from earlier you'll see that, yes, I do think people ought to be able to dress however revealing they want.

 

[BrettRP]

If you read my reply from earlier you'll see that, yes, I do think people ought to be able to dress however revealing they want.

And I would strongly disagree for a variety of what should be obvious reasons. First if we're going to say that people can dress however revealing they want, then that includes nudity. That includes just walking around with no clothes whatsoever, which is problematic for obvious reasons. Second it's important to note that dressing revealingly can cause people to be very uncomfortable. Some people want to see women (and sometimes men) dressed that way, and some don't. If you have a heterosexual woman interacting with another woman who is wearing little to no clothes, then it makes her very uncomfortable, because she's being exposed to a form of sexuality that she doesn't choose to be exposed to. Additionally some men don't want to see that for religious reasons, and a desire to be sexually pure. While they shouldn't be able to force their definition of sexual purity on others, their desire for sexual purity should also be respected. And if NOTHING ELSE in public spaces there are commonly children walking around, whose parents don't want them to see that kind of nudity, or just revealing clothing.

That being said the most logical solution is to create private spaces where people can go, and dress as revealing as they want, thus no one is exposed to anything sexual that they don't want to see.

 

[Diagram]

And I would strongly disagree for a variety of what should be obvious reasons. First if we're going to say that people can dress however revealing they want, then that includes nudity. That includes just walking around with no clothes whatsoever, which is problematic for obvious reasons. Second it's important to note that dressing revealingly can cause people to be very uncomfortable. Some people want to see women (and sometimes men) dressed that way, and some don't. If you have a heterosexual woman interacting with another woman who is wearing little to no clothes, then it makes her very uncomfortable, because she's being exposed to a form of sexuality that she doesn't choose to be exposed to. Additionally some men don't want to see that for religious reasons, and a desire to be sexually pure. While they shouldn't be able to force their definition of sexual purity on others, their desire for sexual purity should also be respected. And if NOTHING ELSE in public spaces there are commonly children walking around, whose parents don't want them to see that kind of nudity, or just revealing clothing.

That being said the most logical solution is to create private spaces where people can go, and dress as revealing as they want, thus no one is exposed to anything sexual that they don't want to see.

You seem to be under the assunption that all nudity is inherently sexual, which it isn't.

I do agree that it would be good if society at large shifted its norms somewhat, like I said before.

 

[BrettRP]

Walking around nude is sexual, and you can't argue that it's anything else. When a person exposes their genitalia to another person, that's sexual. When a person exposes any sexual part of their body to another person, that's sexual. When a person dresses immodestly, that's sexual. The only exception to this rule is when a person is alone, and no one can see their nudity. If another person can see it, then it's sexual. I hate to break this to you, but you don't get to separate nudity from sexuality just because you want to want to dress as provocatively as you want. And no, it wouldn't be good if "society at large shifted its norms". The only way to get there would be to make a lot of people deeply uncomfortable for a long time in order to accomplish this, which is just wrong. Just cover up in public. It's not that hard. Being considerate of other people and their feelings is not that hard.

Again logically speaking the best solution is to create spaces where people can dress as immodestly as they want. The logical solution is to create these spaces so that people don't have to exposed to any form of nudity they don't want to see. And it begs the immediate question: what is the flaw in that logic? What is the flaw in the idea of creating spaces for people to go to, where they can dress as immodestly as they want? Why would letting people walk around nude be the better alternative?

 

[BrettRP]

As with any social/political discourse - not just in America, but the world over, one can always come back to the old saying "It's great to be the executioner, but it sucks being the executed!"

I think no matter what your country's politics are, if you're spending time regulating what various sexes, races or religions can or cannot do, you're living in a failed state.

I think progress, education, health care, facts, truth, reality - and infrastructure are the best places to improve life for all with no need to regulate what any person can or cannot do.

This whole discussion is ridiculous to say the least. In America, we want to outlaw Drag Queen Story Hour because some of the regulators want to protect our children.

Yet when the fact that the leading cause of children's death is due to being shot by a gun, those same regulators are quieter than crickets. And not one child has died at a Drag Queen Story Hour!

But having said all that, maybe I should invest in prisons. Since we want to fill them with women wanting abortions and going topless, maybe I could make a good return on my investment.

So children are being sexually assaulted and approached by sex offenders in a public place, but it's cool because they haven't died? Does that really make sense? and when it comes to guns, these same regulators are anything but quiet. They have been very outspoken about guns, and the need for citizens to have access to those guns, in order to protect their families. It's also important to note that the reason these same "regulators" don't want to outlaw guns is because they believe this would increase the number of gun deaths, not decrease it.