<p>But guys don't have to wear shirts at the beach? Like, a woman can get ticketed/arrested if she were to walk around on a beach/sidewalk/whatever without a shirt on, while a guy can do just that with no problems.</p>
<p>Isn't a law forcing one segment of the population to wear shirts while not requiring another segment to do that classic discrimination and insanely unconstitutional????</p>
<p>Maybe because a women’s breast are more developed than a mans. Which leads to people thinking that is a private area, therefore covering it up. Besides it makes it even, women can wear pants and skirts, men only pants. Happy.</p>
<p>^ I’m not talking about any social taboos about them. I’m talking about formal laws which use police power to force women, but not men, to cover their breasts even though there is literally no harm done.</p>
<p>And men can wear skirts, it’s just socially taboo, unlike how women HAVE to wear tops.</p>
<p>An overweight or obese man can easily have breasts that look more developed than a skinny women. Why does that make it a private area?</p>
<p>I like where this is going</p>
<p>I heard that in new york it wasn’t illegal but I’m not sure because on the Tyra show a photographer did
A whole book on women topless of all shapes and sizes and what not in the city outside and he said that it wasn’t illegal but again I could be wrong</p>
<p>Hahahahaha. It’s for the same reason men (and women) have to wear pants (or, come to think of it, at least underwear). Actually, I don’t think it’s against the law EVERYWHERE to be naked, but in the areas where it is, that’s the reason why.</p>
<p>I do think it is wrong. If women have to cover their chests, regardless of whether its a “private area” analogous to genitals, men should have to cover up to. It’s not like pasty and droopy man-chests aren’t just as offending.</p>
<p>
Laws reflect social taboos. There is no strictly logical reason for this law, and it isn’t a particularly righteous law. However, you won’t see me battling it until the many worse laws are changed.</p>
<p>
I don’t really see what in the Constitution allows for public nudity. Lately, people have used “constitutional” as “right” and “unconstitutional” as “wrong,” yet what is constitutional is often wrong and what is unconstitutional is often right.</p>
<p>Why there is such a law: to keep the peace. People get distracted, resulting into traffic accidents…</p>
<p>But if everyone did it people wouldn’t be distracted anymore. Not that I’m advocating for girls not to cover up. I would much prefer girls to have shirts on.</p>
<p>See, this is part of a bigger problem. We can’t seek “equality” in the strictest definition of the word between men and women because there are fundamental differences. However it is not math. Just because they’re not exactly the same does not mean one is greater and one is lesser; they’re simply different. I’m all for men and women having equal rights, but to me equal rights does not mean we should treat women as exactly the same as men. We think that way because most of what we’ve seen is the notion of male superiority, so all we know is how men should be treated. We need to discover how that works with women–and I think part of that is realizing that that area on a woman is private and not exactly something she (well, most "she"s) wants to share with everyone. Not to mention all the endless male gawking that would go on with women running around like that. The logic of “we wouldn’t be distracted if it happened everywhere” is the same phenomenon of a sex addict who’s not as enthused by the female form any more. Of course we’d “get used” to it, but that doesn’t make it any more right. There is a standard.</p>
<p>I actually never understood why it’s indecent exposure to walk around in a bra and panties but bikinis are considered normal.</p>
<p>@Nabian The reason it is considered a “private” area is because our society says it is. There is no “standard” there is only the standard of our society. If you lived and grew up in a different culture you would feel differently.</p>
<p>"The lack of female clothing above the waist was the norm (and not regarded as toplessness) in the traditional cultures of North America, Africa, Australia and the Pacific Islands at least until the arrival of Christian missionaries,[1] and it continues to be the norm and acceptable in many indigenous cultures today. "</p>
<p>A hundred years ago it was absolutely indecent for women to wear slacks and show their ankles, then it went to their knees and now look where we are. Societies view on proper dress is constantly changing. Who says that a hundred years from now people won’t look at us and think what conservative fuddy duddies we are. Note that in certain parts of the world you can walk around nude no problem, in other parts of the world you basically can’t show any skin.</p>
<p>So crazy people don’t go up to women, give them nipple twists or motorboats or whatever, and damage the organs in their breasts which are meant to function for breastfeeding for newborn infants…guys don’t have to worry about that for their chest area.</p>
<p>^ …</p>
<p>^ Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?</p>
<p>I don’t know that you can really damage it…</p>
<p>After all people sorta do that anyway if you know what I mean and it doesn’t exactly disrupt women’s abilities to nurse babies</p>
<p>What people do behind closed doors is their own choice. However, I don’t like the idea of having my boobs exposed and vulnerable for random people to do such things to them, whether or not the organs in my boobs are damaged or not.</p>
<p>Also another possible reason why women have to cover up is because bare boobs can stimulate guys in that sorta way. If you know what I mean. Imagining them behind something and actually seeing them have very different effects. Oh lawdy lawd.</p>