Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Should bare human female mammary areolae be legal in public?

Page 3 of 4 [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Should bare female mammary areolae be legal in public?
I'm female, and I say No Way! Never! 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
I'm female, and I say only when breastfeeding a child 12%  12%  [ 4 ]
I'm female, and I say only when the breasts contain political slogans 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
I'm female, and I say only when breastfeeding or making a political statement 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
I'm female, and I say only when the breasts are nubile 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I'm female, and I oppose restrictions on public display of areolae 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
I'm male, and I say No Way! Never! 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
I'm male, and I say only when breastfeeding a child 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
I'm male, and I say only when the breasts contain political slogans 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I'm male, and I say only when breastfeeding or making a political 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I'm male, and I say only when the breasts are nubile 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
I'm male, and I oppose restrictions on public display of areolae 50%  50%  [ 17 ]
Total votes : 34

WildTaltos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Age: 123
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Location: Contae Ciarraí, Éire

13 Jun 2013, 5:18 pm

I think a largge part has to do wth women in westrnn societies and othres that are highly criticall of sex seem usualy taught at yuong age that they haev to be modest and sexuly "pious" (becuse if they aernt, they may be considred a whore or a slut), and so thir more reactioinry to anythng sexual than men are, who dont have that emphasised as much to them.


_________________
Níb caram-si, á Áes catha


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

13 Jun 2013, 5:30 pm

Here are indecent exposure laws by state.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/criminal-l ... -exposure/

Some of them are quite vague. For example,

Michigan wrote:
Sec. 335a.

(1) A person shall not knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a crime, as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.

(b) If the person was fondling his or her genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if the person is female, breasts, while violating subsection (1), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

(c) If the person was at the time of the violation a sexually delinquent person, the violation is punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which is 1 day and the maximum of which is life.


The Law doesn't define "open or indecent exposure of his or her person", and would presumably be up to the cops or the judge to decide what that means. A person labeled "sexually delinquent" could be put away for life. Michigan prosecutors must be licking their chops.

Hawaii wrote:
707-734 Indecent exposure. (1) A person commits the offense of indecent exposure if, the person intentionally exposes the person's genitals to a person to whom the person is not married under circumstances in which the actor's conduct is likely to cause affront.

(2) Indecent exposure is a petty misdemeanor.


The Hawaiian law only says "genitals." So, bare bosoms must be fine.

In Florida, with all of those European tourists

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-la ... -laws.html

Just be quick to deny any "lewd intent."

In Texas, surprisingly

Texas wrote:
Sec. 21.08. INDECENT EXPOSURE. (a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.


bare boobies are perfectly okay. Unless Texas somehow regards boobies as "genitals."

Utah is more explicit

Utah wrote:
(1) A person is guilty of lewdness if the person under circumstances not amounting to rape, object rape, forcible sodomy, forcible sexual abuse, aggravated sexual assault, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses, performs any of the following acts in a public place or under circumstances which the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm to, on, or in the presence of another who is 14 years of age or older:

(a) an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;

(b) exposes his or her genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola, the buttocks, the anus, or the pubic area;

(c) masturbates; or

(d) any other act of lewdness.

(2) (a) A person convicted the first or second time of a violation of Subsection (1) is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, except under Subsection (2)(b).

(b) A person convicted of a violation of Subsection (1) is guilty of a third degree felony if at the time of the violation:
...

(3) A woman's breast feeding, including breast feeding in any location where the woman otherwise may rightfully be, does not under any circumstance constitute a lewd act, irrespective of whether or not the breast is covered during or incidental to feeding.


Interesting--a dame may show some cleavage, but no portion of the breast below the top of the areola. Unless she is breastfeeding. Then, Utah law is not offended.



PrncssAlay
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 321
Location: Midwest, Southwest, Northwest, California

15 Jun 2013, 1:41 pm

Fnord wrote:
I personally don't see any reason to make it illegal for women to bare their breasts.


Isn't that what the French Revolution was all about? :D

Image



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,841
Location: Stendec

15 Jun 2013, 2:12 pm

PrncssAlay wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I personally don't see any reason to make it illegal for women to bare their breasts.
Isn't that what the French Revolution was all about?
Image

Liberté, égalité, fraternité, et seins nus!

:lol:



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

15 Jun 2013, 3:30 pm

But, what happened to her areolae?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,841
Location: Stendec

15 Jun 2013, 4:20 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
But, what happened to her areolae?

Maybe it was cold that day...



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

15 Jun 2013, 4:32 pm

Fnord wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
But, what happened to her areolae?

Maybe it was cold that day...


I was at a college baseball game early in the season in the mid 1990s. It had been warm but was cooling down as the sun got low in the sky. One undergraduate girl walked by and it was quite clear that she didn't have a bra underneath her t-shirt because of the way the nipples were hard and poking the fabric out.

As she walked by, each section in turn gave her a standing ovation. Well, the males in each section, anyway.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,841
Location: Stendec

15 Jun 2013, 5:03 pm

eric76 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
But, what happened to her areolae?
Maybe it was cold that day...
I was at a college baseball game early in the season in the mid 1990s. It had been warm but was cooling down as the sun got low in the sky. One undergraduate girl walked by and it was quite clear that she didn't have a bra underneath her t-shirt because of the way the nipples were hard and poking the fabric out. As she walked by, each section in turn gave her a standing ovation. Well, the males in each section, anyway.

Had it been a male streaker, the ladies would have been greatly disappointed ...



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

15 Jun 2013, 8:37 pm

Fnord wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
But, what happened to her areolae?
Maybe it was cold that day...
I was at a college baseball game early in the season in the mid 1990s. It had been warm but was cooling down as the sun got low in the sky. One undergraduate girl walked by and it was quite clear that she didn't have a bra underneath her t-shirt because of the way the nipples were hard and poking the fabric out. As she walked by, each section in turn gave her a standing ovation. Well, the males in each section, anyway.

Had it been a male streaker, the ladies would have been greatly disappointed ...


When I was twenty, I had heart surgery. On the day before the surgery, they did a catheterization. I was flat on my back on a table, totally nude, while the best looking nurse I saw in that hospital the whole time I was there was working to slide a tube through my femoral artery from the region immediately next to the groin up to the heart. At no time during the procedure did that nurse look the least bit impressed nor did I hear any ooh's or ah's from her. Definitely no standing ovation for me.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

16 Jun 2013, 1:21 am

If it's legal for big, fat hairy dudes to walk around shirtless, I can think of no sane reason why female nipples are considered "obscene."

Caught an unfortunate eye-full of man boobs while out for my morning run today. I really didn't need to see some sweaty Jabba the Hut, sans shirt, mowing his lawn, but I managed to survive the encounter.

:eew:


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


PrncssAlay
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 321
Location: Midwest, Southwest, Northwest, California

16 Jun 2013, 7:57 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
Caught an unfortunate eye-full of man boobs while out for my morning run today. I really didn't need to see some sweaty Jabba the Hut, sans shirt, mowing his lawn, but I managed to survive the encounter. :eew:

Man boobs on riding lawn mowers must be a "thing" this year, as I also have had two or three of those encounters. I was surprised at my "ick" reaction because with clothing on all body types are about equal to me. (I basically only care about what is between the ears.) :)



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,841
Location: Stendec

16 Jun 2013, 10:58 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
If it's legal for big, fat hairy dudes to walk around shirtless, I can think of no sane reason why female nipples are considered "obscene." Caught an unfortunate eye-full of man boobs while out for my morning run today. I really didn't need to see some sweaty Jabba the Hut, sans shirt, mowing his lawn, but I managed to survive the encounter.

Uga! Boonowa tweepi, ha, ha. Spasteelia a bunkadunka.

Race a spuce adoobla!



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Jun 2013, 12:07 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:
If it's legal for big, fat hairy dudes to walk around shirtless, I can think of no sane reason why female nipples are considered "obscene."


I think that the standard Feminist logic is that nobody sexually objectifies male mammary areolae, which means that they are neither offensive nor disgusting, and may consequently be flaunted in public displays.

Some people sexually objectify female mammary areolae (even when the distance from the actual genital organs is known), which makes them both offensive and disgusting, and necessary to hide from view, except when breastfeeding or participating in a Feminist rally.

The female areolae of other species, though, may be presented with impunity, as the males of their species do not objectify them sexually.

The adoptive mother of Romulus and Remus gets off on two counts

Image

1. She is breastfeeding, and
2. She in non-human.

Beyond that, Feminists and others who share their sensitivities will surely stay the Hell away from art galleries, which are hotbeds of patriarchy, sexual objectification and visual debauchery.

I'm looking forward to the day when Femen shows up to protest a Gauguin exhibit.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

16 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm

Even the fricking Church is okay with depictions of breastfeeding

Image

Image


There's something that I didn't know: virgins have white areolae.