• tetrachromacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The double standard of topless & male-presenting being ok but topless & female-presenting not being okay is confusing and pointless. The rule won’t force anyone to go topless if they’d prefer not to. It just levels the playing field for everyone.

    I’ve seen men with much bigger boobs than women proudly display them at every beach, lake and festival I’ve ever been to. Why is that ok but not ok for women? Nobody can give me a good answer that’s not tied into some patriarchal, thought-terminating religious BS. Everyone should have the option to go topless, irrespective of chosen gender.

    • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m all for a level playing field… but it’s a complex issue. Beyond the basic: “it’s hot out - free the tiddy!” There are some complexities that will arise from the resulting freedom.

      Many women who want this still may get uncomfortable if people stare / check them out etc… While it is rude to give anyone a thorough look over - I imagine many women may become deeply offended or uncomfortable if this were to happen. Eyes up here may be expected but it cannot be demanded. Equality is just that.

      What about incidental contact? Public transportation, festivals, busy spaces… I have, many times, had someone come in contact with my body in cases like these. If I have exposed skin it is possible it will get touched. Nobody enjoys getting touched or having their space invaded by others but there is a stark difference between this contact and sexual assault. Imagine how some of these occurances will play out from both perspectives.

      Like it or not women’s breasts have been sexualized and undoing that is a Herculean task. Regardless of where you stand on the topic there is collateral damage that can occur as a result of something that seems, on the surface, to be a simple change in law. I’m all for the change but everything gets messy in a hurry by just flipping that switch.

        • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            If you legalize it you have acknowledged that a woman’s breasts are not sexual. There is no recourse.

            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.

            • Yggstyle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                Legally, you do. You may not like it but that’s how it works.

                I’m an attorney, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

                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.

                This isn’t how sexual harassment is determined at all. Nothing you’ve said has any connection to reality.

                Can you take someone to court for looking at your legs? Sure. Will it have a good chance of success? No.

                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.