How can a supposedly free country like the U.S.A. fail to give women the same freedom to go topless as they give men? It does not result in more crime in Canada and Europe, but is just a normal healthy part of life.
2006-07-01 02:28:59 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
yeah i agree women should be topless!
2006-07-01 02:32:33 · answer #1 · answered by GoateeBoy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it that some people think they should be able to do anything they want?
Why is it that some people are constantly looking for reasons to criticize the USA?
Why is it that some people are constantly trying to remove all modesty and morality from the laws, claiming "freedom"?
Why is this question in "religion" instead of "Cultures and Groups"? Is this a veiled attack of religion?
Before you paint Europe and Canada as such "freedom" utopia's, let's talk about the rest of their laws, which are much more restrictive and invasive than in the USA.
2006-07-01 02:41:47 · answer #2 · answered by eric.s 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Women cannot walk around topless legally in all places in Canada. I only know of Toronto allowing it. In Germany, a female can legally go topless only at a beach.
Consider asking a question about which western countries allow females to go topless in public. :)
2006-07-01 02:34:11 · answer #3 · answered by ~dalux~ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, you are a total retard.
Second of all, I need to reiterate my first point.
As to your question though, have you ever see National Geographic channel shows. Women in tribal or aboriginal cultures walk around naked all of the time, and they are the least appealing looking women on the planet. Conversely, a woman walking around in nice clothes with full breasts, a toned body etc. etc.etc. etc. looks like something desirable.
If you take clothes off of the human body and start admitting to the biological reality of the human body then it largely looses its sexual advantages. Think of clothes as feathers or hair. If you plucked a peacock of all his plumage then he would be a very unimpressive bird.
Because human beings have consciousness they are able to enter into concepts that rise above the simple biological reality of breasts, d*cks, feet, food, hair, etc. etc. etc. If you take a woman of strong figure and put her in the right clothes and give her the right facial expression and the right setting, then she becomes a figure in a kind of role, rather than just a vertical body with boobs and a vagina.
Someone can say it is because we live under the Puritan imperative, but the truth is that if you remove the clothes, then you undermine all of the implications that the clothes bring to the scene that make the removal of the clothes desirable.
Didn't you read what the guy said about looking at the women in the bathing suits as opposed to the naked women.
The truth is, the only reason it is appealing to take off your clothes, is because you are capitalizing on a set of ideas and desires that clothing has brought to bear upon the human body.
Because clothing and so many accoutrements of the presentation of the human form have offered us ideas that go beyond the basic nature of the human body, we are susceptible to the power of those ideas, and to start taking the clothes off with those ideas having influence over our minds would be a moment of unbearable temptation. It has nothing to do with Puritans but with a specific functionality of the mind and body.
When I see a woman without her clothes, I have working on my mind the power of the idea of the clothed sensual woman I saw in a movie or a magazine. The reality of the unclothed woman is like what you see in a National Geographic magazine, but because I live in a psychologically and socially more complex state of ideas and associations than the peoples that run around without their clothes on, essentially I am using clothing to make unclothedness more desirable.
You can complain all you want about your basic freedom, but it is very dangerous to combine fundamentally antagonistic ideas. If you want to be onclothed then go to Australia and find some aborigines to run around with. I garauntee you though that you won't the same power over men's minds that women walking around in alluring outfits here in America have.
Everyone has heard the phrase comparing apples and oranges . . .
What you are suggesting is like trying to grow oranges out of an apple tree.
Once again, let me reiterate how very ignorant you are in a question that only has appeal because of the limitations of your own mind and your underdeveloped understanding of the psyche and emotions of human beings and the things they do to manipulate those emotions, their concepts, etc.
2006-07-01 11:57:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Isnt the U.S.A. the most obese nation in the world?? Would you really want some fat 400 pound girl to be walking around with no top on?? I guess it might help with the obesity problem if everyone around her was "losing their lunch"...but its still not something I want to see!!
2006-07-01 04:47:38 · answer #5 · answered by SKITTLES 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no they don't your dreaming mate-on the beach-in some designated places yes but other wise we got the same laws as you,sorry if i ruined a fantasy for you,any way after a short while on those beaches you start looking at the ones with swimsuits on,they've more mystery about them.x
2006-07-01 02:35:18 · answer #6 · answered by Tommy D. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We still operate under the Puritan Imperative.
2006-07-01 02:32:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is an idiot idea like you.that's not a humanity.now you wanna women to walk naked in the streets?now till me what's the difference between a woman and animals?,as you see female animals don't need a clothes do u wanna this to be.shame on you .
2006-07-01 02:34:57 · answer #8 · answered by renoz 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
while i certainly agree with freedom, can you imagine how many more automobile accidents a nice pair can cause!
2006-07-01 02:34:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The usa is too violent, and sexual to do that
2006-07-01 02:33:53 · answer #10 · answered by c1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋