Women feel oppressed by bathing suit law
essentia...@rock.com
"'Drop Your Top' Idea Receives Cold Shoulder after Opposition from
Pro-Family Citizens. A radical proposal to allow women and girls to go
topless at California's public beaches and parks has failed to
materialize after loud outcry from pro-family citizens."
"The "drop your top" proposal made headlines in January when liberal
lawyer Lianna Johnsson's radical idea was endorsed by the Conference of
Delegates of California Bar Associations. Yet the proposal never became
a bill because no state legislator would introduce it by the
legislative deadline in late February."
Those supporting the 'Drop Your Top' idea made a mistake in encouraging
topless sunbathing. The California Legislature should neither seek to
encourage nor discourage topless sunbathing, yet they should merely set
the state law in line with natural law, appellate law, and the
principle of freedom, and make topless sunbathing legal.
No one has to go topless unless they prefer it, and there is no reason
for the State Legislature to encourage a dress code in this case. But
wherever a man may go topless, it should be legal for a woman to go
topless as well.
Any departure from natural law and fairness teaches evil and
unrighteousness. Freedom must be the foundation of our morality. We
must work towards the day when all people respect other's unalienable
right to freedom. Which includes all other unalienable rights. And if
the government does not respect these rights, then how can individuals
be expected to respect them?
The government must endeavor to be righteous, rather than merely
imposing its own subjective and faulty morality upon others.
Under regimes where women were required to wear burkas, an uncovered
face would seem naked. In all other places, an uncovered face is
considered normal. Once breasts are uncovered, bare breasts will not
seem like a big deal anymore. It's all in our minds, and anyone who
thinks that nudity is something, should consider the already exposed
parts of our bodies which give no one pause.
Nudity is good where it is appropriate. Men do not usually go into
stores shirtless, and nor should women.
Topless sunbathing legal in Central Park:
http://www.timeoutny.com/features/357/357.nude.topless.html
Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations endorses topless
sunbathing:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200501%5CPOL20050128a.html
Campaign for Children and Families (CCF) imposes their Taliban like
morality on Californians:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?storyid=3507
The Campaign for Children and Families contends: A drop your top
proposal would "ruin family outings at public parks and beaches, harm
basic family values and public decency, and would result in very
inappropriate treatment of women and girls."
Let's examine this statement:
A drop your top proposal would:
A. "ruin family outings at public parks and beaches,"
This is not true. As we can see women sunbathe topless in Central park
all the time without ruining anything.
B."harm basic family values"
Impossible. Perhaps they would like to state what these basic family
values are. Are they values which make someone ashamed of his or her
body??
C. "and public decency,"
A value judgment
D. "and would result in very inappropriate treatment of women and
girls."
A bold faced lie. There is no reason for treatment of women and girls
to change at all. In Europe women go topless and are treated with the
proper respect anyone gives a stranger. Nudity does not change
anything.
Furthermore, clothes are merely titillating. Nudity is a good thing,
it is our natural state. The fact that sex is hidden is more likely to
induce arousal, then if it is exposed. Hiding sex and requiring
clothing makes sex into a bigger deal than it is.
Just check out some of these pictures of topless women on the beach,
and tell me if you don't think it's a good thing:
http://www.nudebeach.ws/main.html
"His disciples said: "When will you appear to us, and when will we see
you?"
Jesus said: "When you undress without being ashamed and take your
clothes and put them under your feet like little children and trample
on them, then you will see the son of the Living One, and you will not
be afraid."
wes...@laway.net
>Is this the land of the free, or the land of oppression?
>
>"'Drop Your Top' Idea Receives Cold Shoulder after Opposition from
>Pro-Family Citizens. A radical proposal to allow women and girls to go
>topless at California's public beaches and parks has failed to
>materialize after loud outcry from pro-family citizens."
<snip>
Here's what I want to know. I saw a guy riding a bicycle down the
street with no shirt. If I did likewise, no doubt I'd be arrested for
indecent exposure.
Why are his tits okay but mine are indecent?
Kurt Ullman
wes...@laway.net wrote:
>Why are his tits okay but mine are indecent?
Send me a photo of your tits and I'll see if I can come up with a
reason.
Kurt (Oh, like you didn;t see THAT one comin' a mile away) Ullman
--
The difference between being diplomatic and undiplomatic is the
difference between saying "When I look at you time stands still"
and "Your face could stop a clock." ~~ Anon.
Chrissy Cruiser
> Is this the land of the free, or the land of oppression?
Both.
> "'Drop Your Top' Idea Receives Cold Shoulder after Opposition from
> Pro-Family Citizens. A radical proposal to allow women and girls to go
> topless at California's public beaches and parks has failed to
> materialize after loud outcry from pro-family citizens."
Let me see if I understand this. The Pro-Family group doesn't endorse
nudism.
LOL LOL
I guess they are Anti-Birth then.
> "The "drop your top" proposal made headlines in January when liberal
> lawyer Lianna Johnsson's radical idea was endorsed by the Conference of
> Delegates of California Bar Associations. Yet the proposal never became
> a bill because no state legislator would introduce it by the
> legislative deadline in late February."
When the day comes you can't get a California politician to endorse topless
nudity, the pendulum of conservative uptightness is truly stuck in place.
> Those supporting the 'Drop Your Top' idea made a mistake in encouraging
> topless sunbathing. The California Legislature should neither seek to
> encourage nor discourage topless sunbathing, yet they should merely set
> the state law in line with natural law, appellate law, and the
> principle of freedom, and make topless sunbathing legal.
They should endorse toplessness and bottomlessness for more simple reasons
than that.
Like, what the fuck is the big deal anyway?
> No one has to go topless unless they prefer it, and there is no reason
> for the State Legislature to encourage a dress code in this case. But
> wherever a man may go topless, it should be legal for a woman to go
> topless as well.
I would support a bill that would make it illegal for a male with
gynecomastia or a male with no nipples to go topless. Fair is fair, yes?
http://www.plasticsurgery4u.com/male_plastic_surgery/why_men_have_nipples.html
> Under regimes where women were required to wear burkas, an uncovered
> face would seem naked. In all other places, an uncovered face is
> considered normal. Once breasts are uncovered, bare breasts will not
> seem like a big deal anymore. It's all in our minds, and anyone who
> thinks that nudity is something, should consider the already exposed
> parts of our bodies which give no one pause.
I have ugly toes. Yech.
Jesus was a nudist?
I never knew.
--
"A long time ago I decided to limit my emotional baggage to a very small
carry-on = How B
Chrissy Cruiser
> Here's what I want to know. I saw a guy riding a bicycle down the
> street with no shirt. If I did likewise, no doubt I'd be arrested for
> indecent exposure.
>
> Why are his tits okay but mine are indecent?
Too small?
Vic Vega
<wes...@laway.net> wrote in message
news:j4hui1hp8ieqb9c7f...@4ax.com...
because they hang to your knees?
Karen
The whole topless thing just makes me shake my head sometimes. My
friends and I were in Punta Cana when back in the states, people who
happened to be watching the half-time show of the Superbowl saw a
micro-second view of Janet Jackson's breast. It all seemed so silly
since we were spending our days basking on beaches full of topless
women. And you know, I never overheard *any* gentlemen or any men of
any kind making lewd, vulgar or suggestive comments. Maybe if we would
relax a bit in the states we could grow up sexually a bit. It would be
fine with me if we could retire the words: hooters, gazongas, melons,
ta-tas, woobies, Pointer sisters......(well you get the idea)
permanently from the vocabulary, at least as they refer to woman's
breasts. Not that *I* plan on going topless in the near future mind
you.
garciy...@hotmail.com
shows/crime scenes/spree and serial killings......
but holy crap, dont show a female boob.....that will screw with the
minds of the young.....
I would rather my son when he turns 15 catching the occasional boob
shot on TV then having to see nypd blue/ law and order, etc.....not
that those are terribly violent, but they have their moments....
Jere Lull
garciy...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I would rather my son when he turns 15 catching the occasional boob
> shot on TV then having to see nypd blue/ law and order, etc.....not
> that those are terribly violent, but they have their moments....
I would rather my 15 year old have already seen enough to think nothing
of simple toplessness.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/
Chrissy Cruiser
> here in the states we can show hour after hour of violent cop
> shows/crime scenes/spree and serial killings......
>
> but holy crap, dont show a female boob.....that will screw with the
> minds of the young.....
>
> I would rather my son when he turns 15 catching the occasional boob
> shot on TV then having to see nypd blue/ law and order, etc
Nicely said.
Chrissy Cruiser
> In article <1127261875.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> garciy...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I would rather my son when he turns 15 catching the occasional boob
>> shot on TV then having to see nypd blue/ law and order, etc.....not
>> that those are terribly violent, but they have their moments....
>
> I would rather my 15 year old have already seen enough to think nothing
> of simple toplessness.
Better still.
Dillon Pyron
>On 19 Sep 2005 13:34:07 -0700, essentia...@rock.com wrote:
>
>> Is this the land of the free, or the land of oppression?
>
>Both.
>
>> "'Drop Your Top' Idea Receives Cold Shoulder after Opposition from
>> Pro-Family Citizens. A radical proposal to allow women and girls to go
>> topless at California's public beaches and parks has failed to
>> materialize after loud outcry from pro-family citizens."
>
>Let me see if I understand this. The Pro-Family group doesn't endorse
>nudism.
Actually, a topless ban seems hard to enforce. I can go topless. And
then there's this 14th Amendment thingy.
>
>LOL LOL
>
>I guess they are Anti-Birth then.
>
--
dillon
Pain is Nature's way of saying "that was stupid"
Chrissy Cruiser
> Thus spake Chrissy Cruiser <doubleb...@mail.com> :
>
>>On 19 Sep 2005 13:34:07 -0700, essentia...@rock.com wrote:
>>
>>> Is this the land of the free, or the land of oppression?
>>
>>Both.
>>
>>> "'Drop Your Top' Idea Receives Cold Shoulder after Opposition from
>>> Pro-Family Citizens. A radical proposal to allow women and girls to go
>>> topless at California's public beaches and parks has failed to
>>> materialize after loud outcry from pro-family citizens."
>>
>>Let me see if I understand this. The Pro-Family group doesn't endorse
>>nudism.
>
> Actually, a topless ban seems hard to enforce. I can go topless. And
> then there's this 14th Amendment thingy.
You would think so but history is full of police actions, beach closings
and other similar enforcements especially in the USA.
Note the quote above re: "radical". It's radical to want the freedom of
nudism.
What?
This comes from the same, closed minded, absurd thinking that invaded the
Vietnam War protests. it was "radical" then to want that hideous atrocity
to end. it was "radical" to claim that it was a war foisted on and
supported by <black> teenagers.
So now it is "radical" to propose that, shudder I say it, that women should
be *allowed* to bear their breasts in public.
To me it is radical that we have laws in the first place that make it
illegal to do so. Let's not even get started on, you know, that thingy down
there. Best keep it under chastity lock.
Idiots.
Jeff Jenson
THIS QUOTE ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!
Chrissy Cruiser
>> Jesus was a nudist?
>>
>> I never knew.
>> --
>> "A long time ago I decided to limit my emotional baggage to a very small
>> carry-on = How B
>
> THIS QUOTE ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!
NEITHER IS YOURS!
--
"There's Nothing Quite Like A McDonalds... .Except maybe the contents of my
toilet"
jom...@cba.ua.edu
Why do you have to use big words like gynecomastia. I had to go look it
up. Why could you not have written big hooters on a guy. I guess that
big isn't always better, at least not in the wrong places.
John
Sylvia Else
jom...@cba.ua.edu wrote:
> Chrissy,
>
> Why do you have to use big words like gynecomastia. I had to go look it
> up.
So now you'll know what it means next time. What's the problem?
Sylvia.
Marsketa
Marsketa
Chrissy Cruiser
> Chrissy,
>
> Why do you have to use big words like gynecomastia. I had to go look it
> up. Why could you not have written big hooters on a guy.
Too much typing LOL
>I guess that
> big isn't always better, at least not in the wrong places.
>
> John
Think about heads, John, a big head can be awful or magnificent.
David
"Jeff Jenson" <jeffjenson...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127442224....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> THIS QUOTE ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!
No but it is in the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of sayings of Jesus
preserved by the Coptic Christian church for about 2000 years. Some bible
scholars think that this collection of bible sayings pre-dates anything we
have in the "approved" canon of the Bible.
David
Chrissy Cruiser
"Approved" canon. How many are there? Enumerable. The Coptics got Thomas
right, good for them, and here I doubted they would.
--
"I'll have those god-damned niggers voting Democratic for the next 200
years." - Lyndon B. Johnson, proud left-wing liberal racist democrat
David
"Chrissy Cruiser" <doubleb...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1lu1z5olkuf23$.a2tnawwu013e$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:06:00 -0400, David wrote:
>
> "Approved" canon. How many are there? Enumerable. The Coptics got Thomas
> right, good for them, and here I doubted they would.
There are several "approved" canons (or collections) of Scripture. The
Jewish authorities have at least two different sets of Torah depending on if
you are Ultra-Orthodox or not. There are endless debates on how
authoritative the Mishna ought to be as well.
In the Christian world the Roman Church includes several inter-testimental
books called the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books that were eliminated from
the Protestant version of the Bible accepted by Luther and the Reformers in
the 1500's. The Orthodox Churches have their own list that is similar to the
Roman church but also includes some Patriarchal literature that was not
accepted by either the Roman Church or the Reformers. Then there is the
Coptic Church's offshoot collection that never rose to be called
"Canononical" but certainly were held in high esteem by those folks.
To my mind then the "Approved" canon is a moving target depending on who is
doing the approving... <LOL>
I spent the better part of 20 years trying to figure out which books like
the Gospel of Thomas should be included. It was meaningful at the time and
fascinating to me to see what other folks wrote about God, Jesus Christ and
the world but I am not really convinced that it helped me be more faithful
or certain of my faith. Am I glad I learned some obscure languages and could
read stuff that only a handful of people could? Yes... but it did not change
the world. I might have better spent my time trying to find a cure for MS or
Cancer
D
Chrissy Cruiser
>> "Approved" canon. How many are there? Enumerable. The Coptics got Thomas
>> right, good for them, and here I doubted they would.
>
> There are several "approved" canons (or collections) of Scripture. The
> Jewish authorities have at least two different sets of Torah depending on if
> you are Ultra-Orthodox or not. There are endless debates on how
> authoritative the Mishna ought to be as well.
>
> In the Christian world the Roman Church includes several inter-testimental
> books called the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books that were eliminated from
> the Protestant version of the Bible accepted by Luther and the Reformers in
> the 1500's. The Orthodox Churches have their own list that is similar to the
> Roman church but also includes some Patriarchal literature that was not
> accepted by either the Roman Church or the Reformers. Then there is the
> Coptic Church's offshoot collection that never rose to be called
> "Canononical" but certainly were held in high esteem by those folks.
>
> To my mind then the "Approved" canon is a moving target depending on who is
> doing the approving... <LOL>
Sure is, raised Catholic, their approved canon is self-serving. "Upon this
rock I will build my church" evolved into "The Pope is Christ on Earth".
> I spent the better part of 20 years trying to figure out which books like
> the Gospel of Thomas should be included. It was meaningful at the time and
> fascinating to me to see what other folks wrote about God, Jesus Christ and
> the world but I am not really convinced that it helped me be more faithful
> or certain of my faith. Am I glad I learned some obscure languages and could
> read stuff that only a handful of people could? Yes... but it did not change
> the world. I might have better spent my time trying to find a cure for MS or
> Cancer
>
> D
I spent a year of academic work doing much the same thing, formal Biblical
education, several denominations, I came away with the same conclusion.
At the end of the day, you will find Christ in your heart or you won't and
although the Bible(s) are well worth reading, one had best start with the
prayer "Lord, I have absolutely no clue what to interp so do me a favor,
I'll read, You deliver the appropriate message."
--
"I'm not black, but there's a whole lot of times I wish I could say I'm not
white". - Zappa
Anonymouse
b*tch t*ts
Chrissy Cruiser
Hey, Idiot, the Vols won a remarkable game, get off your trick pony and
enjoy beating up on those drunk Cajuns.
Or die, either works fine for me.
MikeB
<essentia...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:1127162047....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is this the land of the free, or the land of oppression?
>
> "'Drop Your Top' Idea Receives Cold Shoulder after Opposition from
> Pro-Family Citizens. A radical proposal to allow women and girls to go
> topless at California's public beaches and parks has failed to
> materialize after loud outcry from pro-family citizens."
We got a kick out of a group of six middle aged Midwestern women
in Playa del Carmen last March. As PdC is frequented my many
Europeans, the beach is top-optional with most men and about 20%
of women topless. The somewhat intoxicated women were trying to
sneak a picture of a topless woman. I thought of offering to take their
picture topless, but I am sure the irony would have been lost on them.
One of them rather rudely snapped a shot of a topless couple walking
towards them from a range of about 5 feet. No doubt they would have
felt uncomfortable if a stranger snapped their picture without asking.
Anyway, I think it was healthy to see casual toplessness in public,
given that they have seen breastfeeding all their lives. Just a shame
those from the "land of the free" need to go to Mexico for such
simple freedoms.