The human body is not something to hide.
The human body is not something to hide.
Mine is. :lol:
No fucking way!
The human body is not something to hide.
Mine is. :lol:
Be topless anytime. Nudity is perfectly legal in most of VT and excepted at many watering holes, http://www.swimmingholes.org/
The human body is not something to hide.
Mine is. :lol:
I'm not likely to run around topless either, but doesn't it tick you off just a bit that it's something you could be arrested for?
If the participants aren't walking around their homes topless then this protest is just childish and really, it's just bringing attention to yourself and doing nothing for "achieving more liberty".
If the participants aren't walking around their homes topless then this protest is just childish and really, it's just bringing attention to yourself and doing nothing for "achieving more liberty".
Again, I don't generally walk around topless, but I do walk through the house half-dressed to get to the dryer when I need a top or bra, or to grab what I need to iron a blouse. So, there :P.
The Liberals are already fighting for this issue. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. I have no desire to have a bunch of "registered sex offenders" on the libertarian roster.
Admittedly Ziggy's idea to have topless Transvestites would be interesting.
The Liberals are already fighting for this issue. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. I have no desire to have a bunch of "registered sex offenders" on the libertarian roster.
Admittedly Ziggy's idea to have topless Transvestites would be interesting.
I hadn't thought of that. Defining what a sexual offender is, now that is worth fighting for. I don't believe a pedophile is someone attracted to a sexually mature girl, the cops beg to differ. If this outreach creates a debate about that, maybe it isn't such a waste of resources.The Liberals are already fighting for this issue. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. I have no desire to have a bunch of "registered sex offenders" on the libertarian roster.
Admittedly Ziggy's idea to have topless Transvestites would be interesting.
Even if the "registered sex offenders" on that roster love 15-year-old teen titties exposed to the public???
LMAO!!
Can't the CIV/DIS folks come up with some better ideas? This idea is so old. After the feminists got the right to go topless in Toronto, very few females actually did it. It's been probably more than 10 years that Toronto has allowed women to go topless, and I have never seen any female go topless, and I don't know anyone who has. I imagine it only happens at the gay pride parades, and that's about it.
So then....what's all this about women wanting to actually do it, and then when they are allowed to do it....they still don't want to do it?!?!?!?
no one wants to see [BonerJoe's] manboobs |
Lew Rockwell started the paleo-libertarian thing in order to avoid this exact sort of hippie buffoonery.
I agree with almost everything you wrote. From a P.R. perspective, I think the topless thing is a disaster. If I were walking in the park with kids (I know, "its for the children"), I would be very annoyed at seeing a protest like that.
I agree with almost everything you wrote. From a P.R. perspective, I think the topless thing is a disaster. If I were walking in the park with kids (I know, "its for the children"), I would be very annoyed at seeing a protest like that.
Why?
I agree with almost everything you wrote. From a P.R. perspective, I think the topless thing is a disaster. If I were walking in the park with kids (I know, "its for the children"), I would be very annoyed at seeing a protest like that.
Why?
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
If I wanted my kids to be shielded from victimless activities, I suppose I would have to keep them locked up in my property and not let them escape.
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
If I wanted my kids to be shielded from victimless activities, I suppose I would have to keep them locked up in my property and not let them escape.
Are you saying there is nothing inappropriate, though non-criminal, that people can do in public that may be viewed by children?
I think when people go a "public" park, they have an expectation to not see topless women.
This is why there should be no such thing as public land. It results in chaos. Everybody can make some claim that they are being offended by something. Right now, though, there is "public" land. And I don't think it's unreasonable for some kind of rules to be set for its use.
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
Can't the CIV/DIS folks come up with some better ideas? This idea is so old. After the feminists got the right to go topless in Toronto, very few females actually did it. It's been probably more than 10 years that Toronto has allowed women to go topless, and I have never seen any female go topless, and I don't know anyone who has. I imagine it only happens at the gay pride parades, and that's about it.
So then....what's all this about women wanting to actually do it, and then when they are allowed to do it....they still don't want to do it?!?!?!?
LOL.
Sad thing is that this just gives people another opportunity to call white guys names like "sexist", "racist", "homophobe" ....and what not. I find it interesting to see such name-calling within the liberty movement, and it makes me think the name callers are really, deep down, just a bunch of no class dirty hippies.
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
I don't. What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do. If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it.
It seems that the "debaters" are all disagreeing, while the "doers" all support it. Hmm.
Can't the CIV/DIS folks come up with some better ideas? This idea is so old. After the feminists got the right to go topless in Toronto, very few females actually did it. It's been probably more than 10 years that Toronto has allowed women to go topless, and I have never seen any female go topless, and I don't know anyone who has. I imagine it only happens at the gay pride parades, and that's about it.
So then....what's all this about women wanting to actually do it, and then when they are allowed to do it....they still don't want to do it?!?!?!?
LOL.
Sad thing is that this just gives people another opportunity to call white guys names like "sexist", "racist", "homophobe" ....and what not. I find it interesting to see such name-calling within the liberty movement, and it makes me think the name callers are really, deep down, just a bunch of no class dirty hippies.
I actually did see a topless woman in Toronto when I was there a few years ago. Anyway, if it were legal, it would be very rare for me to take my shirt off, but there are definitely rare situations, particularly when it was really hot out, where it'd be nice to have the option.
Quote
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?Quote
I don't. What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do. If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it.
Wow, that is just retarded. So is BJs opinion. Of course there are things that parents do not wish their children to see and to do what ever feels good to you no matter if is appropriate for children would just make you an asshole not enlightened. There are community standards. If you want to go topless in the park move to fucking Germany.
By your standards it would be fine for a couple that engages in golden showers to go ahead and bogey down in the park with children around.
I think when people go a "public" park, they have an expectation to not see topless women.
It depends on which people. People in Germany, for example, do have an expectation to see topless women in the park, because it's legal there (or it was, last I checked). When it's warm, women like to sunbathe there topless. I have very little regard for people's expectations as a barometer for what is okay and what isn't.QuoteThis is why there should be no such thing as public land. It results in chaos. Everybody can make some claim that they are being offended by something. Right now, though, there is "public" land. And I don't think it's unreasonable for some kind of rules to be set for its use.
Currently, the rules say that freedom of expression exists on public land. Going topless, like any other choice about one's appearance, is a form of expression.QuoteWhere do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
I don't. What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do. If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it.
I wished you read what I wrote more carefully. I didn't just say that what children might see affects my standards on what people should or shouldn't do. I qualified it by saying in a public park or comparable venue. So you are saying you can do anything non-criminal in a public park where children may be present and thats OK. I also thought it was obvious that we were talking about a standard park in the United States.
You're calling me retarded, while in the same breath demanding that I either obey community standards or move to Germany? I don't think I care to count how many levels of stupidity there are in that statement, considering that it was once a community standard in Germany to, you know, exterminate Jews.
So I won't. In short, I'll just say: Fuck community standards. No amount of disapproving people can turn a harmless act into a harmful one.
No, because while urine is generally sterile it has the potential to carry certain diseases, thus endangering the general population-- child or otherwise.
Sorry, but "I don't want my kid to see that" is not an argument on its own for outlawing any behavior in others. If you don't want your kid to witness something that doesn't harm anyone, that's your problem to deal with.
which is sort of like a drunk guy at a party ready to fight everybody. This mentality is encapsulated with a type of , "Fuck you....I'll do whatever I want.....what are you going to do about it?" slogan.
Awful lot of prudes and control freaks for a libertarian forum...
If libertarians are unable to govern themselves in a manner acceptable to social norms then how are they going to convince anyone it is the right way to live?
We all agree consensual acts that do not harm others should not be outlawed.
I do not understand why people think that women need to keep their shirts on "for the children". There is absolutely nothing about female breasts that is harmful to children. Are they forgetting that women use their breasts to feed babies? It's nothing they haven't seen before.
There should be a stripper pole at the protest.
I thought the point of CIV-DIS was to affect political change. Why is it being used by some to affect change in people's personal sexual and/or religious beliefs?
The people who skip from this directly to public fucking are mentally challenged.
I don't. What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do. If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it.
Are you saying there is nothing inappropriate, though non-criminal, that people can do in public that may be viewed by children?
Not by my standards.
I wish they would just cut to the chase and go straight for the cannibalism protest.I can sell you a placenta.
The men should wear a bikini top, to re-enforce the point, and to hide man boobs.
but I do walk through the house half-dressed to get to the dryer
Im in favor of things that make sense. This double standard makes none. Im against the nonsense.
And that dipshit who wrote the thing about evolution proving that breasts should be hidden because they are attractive... That guy failed miserably.
Ouch.There should be a stripper pole at the protest.
They could just use a stop sign.
I wish they would just cut to the chase and go straight for the cannibalism protest.
Breasts not bombs :)Why not breasts AND F-bombs?
I do not understand why people think that women need to keep their shirts on "for the children". There is absolutely nothing about female breasts that is harmful to children. Are they forgetting that women use their breasts to feed babies? It's nothing they haven't seen before.
All of the women I've seen breastfeeding in public do it discretely.
I thought the point of CIV-DIS was to affect political change. Why is it being used by some to affect change in people's personal sexual and/or religious beliefs? Of course, people can agitate for whatever they want but I don't see the urgency of protesting women's lack of right to go topless in a public place.