What happened to the topless thread
Mar 15th, 2002, 08:36 AM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Religious beliefs can not/should be not attacked? Are you referring to this planet?<BR><BR>Religious beliefs have the principal reason for any group of people to attack another, since the dawn of recorded history.<BR><BR>If your religious beliefs dictated that every third daughter had to be sacrificed to the gods on her sixteenth birthday, that would be more than enough reason to attack you for most humans - - even if you didn't seek to impose it on others outside your clan.<BR><BR>By extension, the Roman Catholic church with its concept that one out of every thousand boys should be persuaded to enter the monastery, lead a life of celibacy (and deteriorate to who-knows-what other social dysfunctions) - - constitutes a target to be attacked by plenty of other groups - - including other Christians.<BR><BR>Peace is highly desirable - - at least it is to me. But I'm not sure it's "natural". Attacking, invading, conquering - - all seem to be part of our species' "natural history". And other species as well.<BR>
Mar 15th, 2002, 08:40 AM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Uncle Sam, you asked: 'Exactly why is that when a person has a moral opinion, or takes a moral posiiton...they are "narrow minded"?' and 'Perhaps they just believe in something moral, and you do not!?'<BR><BR><BR>Ah, my friend, but you are making a mistake; you are attempting to lay claim to the word "moral" in a specific fashion. <BR><BR>Jennie (the woman who asked the initial question about topless beaches in France) does not want her children to see women's bare breasts on beaches. Other people don't care if their children see women's bare breasts on beaches. That doesn't make them any less "moral" than a parent like Jennie. It just means that their sense of what is moral is different from Jennie's, and maybe yours as well. It's certainly different from mine, since I hardly see women going topless on a beach as something that's immoral. (Now, Enron executives creating sham corporations in order to inflate their company's stock value; that's something that's immoral.) <BR><BR>I would argue that people who don't care if women go topless on beaches are, in fact, more broad-minded (i.e. more liberal) -- on that specific isssue anyway -- than those who do care. <BR><BR>In Europe, the forces of liberalism have won on the beaches. In the U.S., the forces of conservatism have won. That's why I love European beaches, and the more broad-minded attitudes (in general) of European people. <BR>
Mar 15th, 2002, 09:03 AM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, Capo, I have seen some bodies (alot)on the Euro beaches that would be better covered up. I don't necessarily want to see unsightly nudity and would rather be shielded from some of the views. If there is a body police that would only allow the good ones to be bare that would be a different story.<BR>Looking at bare breasts just for the sake that we can't in the US isn't always that "titilating".
Mar 15th, 2002, 01:03 PM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capo, you must have missed the exchange between Elina and me, when we agreed that there is no logical relationship between liberalism and what a woman wears – or doesn’t. For every woman going topless who can be said to benefit from liberalism, there’s one that wore a corset and bloomers who also benefited. There are nuns in knee length habits who espouse feminism, whereas some Amazonian tribes are as closed in their opinions about social hierarchy as their bodies are exposed. These observations coincide with my dictionary, which tells me that the opposite of informality is ‘formality’ not ‘conservative.’ <BR><BR>To go topless may be informal, but doesn’t guarantee that the one going topless is a liberal. Brigitte Bardot, the French film actress, may not have initiated the practice of women going topless in the Riviera in general, or even St. Tropez in particular, but she certainly gets the credit for making the practice famous. Yet notwithstanding this, a French court recently upheld her conviction for…..are you listening, Capo? Inciting racial hatred. <BR><BR>And here is the reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/showbiz/newsid_1324000/1324707.stm<BR><BR>Her fourth husband was one Bernard D’Ornale, who is not exactly a left wing politician. Quite the opposite, in fact. <BR><BR>Furthermore, as Obs implied, it is not saying much for progression, when someone starts saying that breasts can be bared – but only certain ones. ‘Attractive’ ones. Or maybe white ones. Or non-muslim ones (this, in a nod to Mlle. Bardot.) Hardly a liberal position, some might say.
Mar 15th, 2002, 01:56 PM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
A, I'd written that I would argue that people who don't care if women go topless on beaches are, in fact, more broad-minded (i.e. more liberal) -- *on that specific issue anyway* -- than those who do care. <BR><BR>I'd never argue that people who are liberal when it comes to displaying the human body can *never* be illiberal in other areas. <BR><BR>This issue in an interesting one, socially, because people who don't think upper-body female nudity is OK on public beaches cannot co-exist on public beaches with those who do, so they pass laws forbidding this. People who feel upper-body female nudity is OK on public beaches -- as in Europe -- on the other hand, don't pass laws requiring all women to remove their tops. They feel like leaving this decision up to the individual, a liberal -- or, if you will, libertarian -- philosophy. <BR><BR>Of course, if female toplessness is permitted on public beaches, then people who don't approve of it feel "oppressed" because, if they go to a public beach, they must face the horrors of seeing bare breasts so they, in turn, do not want this decision left up to the individual. <BR><BR>Anyway, at least in democracies, we settle issues like this by voting, and not shooting each other (or, like the Taliban, beating women who show an inappropriate amount of bare skin.) <BR>
Mar 15th, 2002, 03:44 PM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's often about the intended reaction - - and yet on europes' sunbathing beaches - - I do NOT think it is MOSTly about that.<BR><BR>Cover story today on the Life section of USAToday is focused on junior high kids dressing "too sexy" for America's schools - - and I must admit, I too, "fuss at" our daughter (senior in high school) because her shirt too ften fails to meet her jeans.<BR><BR>The cover draws direct connection between bare midriffs and excessive "sexual activity" - - though they admit that much of the "statistics" are lacking, ancodtal - - and may reflect talk, not action.<BR><BR>Weren't pubertal humans interested and curious about sexual exploration a long, long time ago?<BR>
Mar 16th, 2002, 11:46 AM
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Loni, I am glad you have found another way to support a cause in which you believe. <BR><BR>I'm aware that many people share Bardot’s views on animals, as do many people share her views about foreigners 'overrunning' France. Not, of course, that the two opinions necessarily overlap, and the French court apparently understood this. Bardot has been campaigning for animal rights for years, it's only when she started campaigning against the rights of people that she was indicted. Should someone be indicted for spreading their opinions, regardless of what these opinions are? It's a controversial issue, to be sure. However, this wasn’t why I cited the reference. What I meant to illustrate was that someone’s attitude towards beaches – or towards animals for that matter - does not necessarily extend to other areas, or other people. The converse is also true – people might have quite formal attitudes about what constitutes suitable attire, and yet be very willing to accept change in other areas. So much for the ‘slippery slope’ argument that Rex talked about.<BR><BR>Capo, I think we agree that people might be tolerant in some areas and not so tolerant in others. However, where we might disagree is in the magnitude of importance of those areas. It would be of scant comfort to me to find that a country’s laws permit me to wear less on a beach, if the laws of the same country permit my employer to pay me less, and especially less than someone equally qualified at one and the same job. This, because I get to go to the beach rather less frequently than I have to pay bills, alas. : - ) <BR><BR>Whether one approaches topless beaches with reluctance or anticipation, one’s reaction to these places is usually more emotional than logical. A ‘carefree’ attitude towards nudity doesn’t really ‘count’ as ‘carefree’ on the part of most Europeans, since for most of them topless beaches present the comfort of the familiar, rather than the challenge and possible stress of a new situation. Topless beaches are the status quo in many European countries, and human beings by their nature, not their culture, tend to favour tradition and the status quo. Some biologists even postulate that it’s an adaptive success for the species to be cautious about accepting new ideas, and in Europe, the new idea would be the banning of such beaches, not the institution of same. <BR><BR>So I can quite believe that some Europeans coming to North America would experience anxiety, confusion, and frustration when they discover that old assumptions about what is socially acceptable, what is ‘traditional’ no longer hold. I sympathize with them, but not because they are liberals in a conservative land, because I don’t think that this is necessarily the case, but because they are strangers in a strange one. For the same reason, I have sympathy for those of my North American counterparts who experience stress in Europe. Or even merely anticipate stress, as Jennie, the original poster was doing. I would be saddened to think that a double standard prevails on this board, such that one person’s anxiety is considered another person’s ‘uptightness’, in other words their personal failing, and that where a person is born accounts for the difference in treatment.<BR>
Mar 19th, 2002, 02:57 PM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
a, yes, we certainly agree that people might be tolerant in some areas and not so tolerant in other areas. However, I feel that people who are truly liberal tend to more tolerant in more areas, than those who are conservative. <BR><BR>Re: "It would be of scant comfort to me to find that a country’s laws permit me to wear less on a beach, if the laws of the same country permit my employer to pay me less, and especially less than someone equally qualified at one and the same job."<BR><BR>I'm sure you, and most other women, would. But the U.S., for example, doesn't permit toplessness on public beaches, and feminists are always decrying the "wage gap" in this country. Perhaps in European countries, where toplessness on public beaches is allowed, there might actually be less of a "wage gap" than there is in the U.S.
Mar 19th, 2002, 06:32 PM
#75
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.eva.fi/finland/8.htm<BR><BR>The above reference shows that the performance of countries on such United Nations indicators as the Gender Empowerment Measure does not correlate with whether such countries practice what you insist on calling liberalism on beaches. Finland, which according to Elina is ‘liberal’ in this way performs fairly well – but Canada and the USA, which you insist on describing as ‘conservative’ countries perform even better. France and Germany lag behind all three. This source is yet more evidence against there being any consistent relationship between politics and beachwear – or lack of beachwear. : - )<BR><BR>Capo, why are you determined to believe that there is a relationship between politics, of any stripe, and what people wear – or don’t – on beaches? Do you need politics to enjoy these places? I would think it is enough that you do enjoy them.<BR><BR>Meanwhile, you can of course believe that topless beaches represent liberalism if that’s what you want to believe. However, you cannot demand that people accept your beliefs as factual explanations, simply because that is what you desperately want them to do.<BR>
Mar 20th, 2002, 04:31 PM
#76
Guest
Posts: n/a
a, I'm curious about what you last wrote. Since you don't seem to find toplessness on public beaches (as exists in Europe) to be indicative of a liberal attitude toward what people wear (or don't wear), exactly what kind of attitude DO you find it to be indicative of? A conservative attitude? <BR><BR><BR>
Mar 20th, 2002, 06:18 PM
#77
Guest
Posts: n/a
Normally a big Capo fan, but I'm going to say that you really don't get it Capo. Not connected to politics means not connected to politics.<BR><BR>Take any two women or men. One decides to favor topless at the beach for self, mother, sister, 18, 13 or 7 year old daughter. The other never does. No way to predict which has which politics. One might be staunchly "anti-federalist", staunchly pro-capitalist/free-market, apathetic or even opposed to gay rights or liberalization of abortion or the 35 hour work week or any other social issue. Not predictable which position on a topless beach any such European might favor. Nor the opposite political views.<BR>
Mar 20th, 2002, 08:17 PM
#79
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anon, who says anything about politics? Liberal and conservative are not soley political labels, as you and "a" seem to see them. They're philosophies, and all I'm saying is that if one is in favor of women deciding for themselves whether or not to wear tops on public beaches, then one is more liberal on this particular issue.
