this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
81 points (90.1% liked)
Boston, MA
1098 readers
29 users here now
Welcome to c/boston,
A community for all things related to Boston, Massachusetts. Whether you're a local, a visitor, or just interested in the city, this is the place to discuss, share, and connect with fellow Bostonians.
Greater Boston area discussion is welcome here.
Rules:
Be respectful: Treat others with respect and courtesy. Personal attacks, trolling, and harassment will not be tolerated.
Stay on topic: Keep discussions relevant to Boston and its surrounding areas.
Official City of Boston Website
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Teach them not to stare.
It's pretty easy.
We teach that for generations. Turns out the sexual urge can't just be "taught" away, people will look regardless, even unconsciously.
is it a sexual urge (which is fine to have) or a thing that is seen as exclusively sexual (which is maybe problematic)?
I dont think anyone considers boobs as purely sexual. Due to their biological function they are also distinctly maternal, but within the context of sex i suppose they are considered erotic because full breasts biologically indicate good health, and the ability to successfully nurse children.
Same reason we find nice hips attractive although it serves no immediate purpose within the context of sex. But they are also called child bearing hips for that reason; we find them attractive because they indicate a mate able to successfully give birth.
I mean, the tits thing is a myth. I've seen women who were basically flat nurse children, and women with back problems on their chests have trouble. the actual amount of tissue required is very small, or something.
Of course big boobs aren't necessary, nor are the hips. We do consider them attractive for that reason though. My point was that our sexual desires are something very primal and instinctual, and decidedly not something that can be "taught" to overcome.
This. Everyone is thirsty. Legalizing toplessness specifically does one thing: it says a woman's breasts are not special. Not sexual. The same as a back, a leg, a hand. That will drastically effect sexual harassment cases and what defenses a woman has to someone being a scumbag. I can stare at a guy's chest all meeting long and nothing will come of it. Flip that. "I'm just looking, it's not illegal". To me that seems so much worse. It doesn't just affect women who want the freedom- it affects all women period.
I'm a guy, and women's breasts will never not be sexual to me. They are the most arousing part of the female body to me. So the whole "they aren't sexual" thing is never going to fly. I'm sure you could find women who admit to being sexually aroused by a man's bare chest, so I don't see what that has to do with anything anyway.
The simple fact is, women should be absolutely free to put their bare chest on public display as long as men are allowed to do so. I've been to a lot of places in the world where women going topless is legal, and have only ever seen publicly topless women in places where it is not. My experience tells me legalizing it isn't going to cause hordes of loose women to roam the streets looking to corrupt little Johnny. But that's what the prudes are worried about.
I don't know man. Join a nudist colony for a week or two and tell me if you still get a boner every time you see a titty.
Hell, back in the 1700s girls could have their titties out anytime they wanted to it was no big deal but if they showed an ankle or a shoulder then she was a tramp making men squirt their pants left and right.
The things that are considered erotic are contextual, and once you are inside of the context it takes the power out of it.
Sure it's easy until you deal with the fallout. If you legalize it you have acknowledged that a woman's breasts are not sexual. There is no recourse. The reason this is a tough subject is legally we are saying a woman's breasts are no different from a man's and that is a costly statement. Equal? Yes. But it opens a lot of doors and some of them are unquestionably undesirable.
No, you literally do not have to do that. You can legalize toplessness and every other aspect of every other law would remain the same.
Your argument essentially means that a person staring at a woman's leg constantly could not constitute harassment, and that simply isn't true.
You nailed it. I don't understand the argument of "being legally topless = not sexual", because who in their right mind would be saying that? They are just saying "If men can do it, so can women". Rational people don't bat an eye when they see a woman breastfeeding in public, because it isn't sexual. And this isn't any different. Hell, if any hint of sexuality in public caused uncontrollable, orgiastic behavior, then a whole bunch of the advertising in our country would have men unable to function on a daily basis.
Women should be as free as men to display themselves however they like. The other path, taken to the extreme, leads to your society's women wearing sheets over their entire body when they go out in public.
This is making a bad faith argument. Nobody, including myself, is disagreeing that there shouldn't be equality in this space... the statement being made is that legalizing it has side effects IN ADDITION TO the desired result. Some women want the freedom to bare their chest in public. I cannot think of any women that would want to lose protections from being objectified and abused. This is the point I was making. It's not fair... but I understand why many parties have concerns about it.
In what bizzaro world would this ever result in a successful complaint? This is the point I am making. There is a difference in body parts and expressing intent.
I'm not saying it's not wrong. It can be. I'm saying it's not easily actionable which leads to abuse.
Legally, you do. You may not like it but that's how it works. The law is about precedent and interpretation.
This is the road that will be traveled first:
What needs to be covered up? Why does it need to be covered up? Naughty bits. There was a time when a woman's bare leg was sexual and staring at it was, of course, a deviant behavior. Now? Legs for days. Can you take someone to court for looking at your legs? Sure. Will it have a good chance of success? No. What changed? The level of sexuality attached to legs. Extrapolate from here.
My argument isn't about how it should be. People should be decent. They often aren't. My statement is about the legal implications of the decision. Breasts either remain sexual which means all naughty bits are on the table or.... they aren't and are legally no different than any other nonsexual thing.
I'm an attorney, you don't know what you're talking about.
This isn't how sexual harassment is determined at all. Nothing you've said has any connection to reality.
YES! If you're in a workplace and that behavior is happening and it consistent, it is a hostile work environment. It would be no different if the unwanted attention was on a leg, an arm, or a breast.
Enlighten me. Dave had someone staring at his chest all meeting. He wants to make a case. Play that out.
I said this much.
That case would end before it reached a courtroom. It would be insanely difficult to prove intent if we are talking about a back, arm, leg, non sexual part of the body, etc.