The topless parade. Pride or Shame?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Men and women should both be allowed to be topless in public (normal, not a prude).

What, in particular, is wrong about being prudish in this particular situation. I no more wish to observe the breasts of some random woman in the street than I wish to observe a man who has his dick dangling out on said street. There is nothing illogical about this desire, and it is one that I can only assume is shared by the vast majority of the population.

Topless women is an odd thing to be offended about in modern Western culture. It harms nobody. Although I have no problem with people exercising their freedom of speech and telling these women why they think they ought to cover up, there's no reason why they oughtn't have the right to be topless. Cultural norms staying cultural and not part of the legal system is what's breast. I mean, best. I mean, what were we talking about?

Having to, potentially, interact with a stranger who has their breasts (which, for most people, are a rather private part of their body) hanging out is something that I can only imagine to be greatly discomfiting and embarrassing for a great many people. It most certainly is not something that harms nobody.

To be fair, I passed a man the other day who was wearing the most hideous tops you could imagine. It was one of those rugby style shirts with thick horizontal stripes in brash primary colours. It caused me A horrid amount of discomforture, but alas it is his freedom to wear gross shirts.

The breasts and nipples are not a sexual organ, however we view them in society, so exposing it is not like a man's penis being allowed free reign. Rather it is directly comparable to a man's breast. So as long as we treat both kinds of nipple with equal treatment, I don't see anything wrong with parade. Perhaps it's time society behaved less like sning schoolboys over the issue.

As an obvious addendum, at what point during a transwoman's transition does the nipple become verboten?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't really grasp Cassius's point to be honest. Humanity is a sentimental beast, and almost all social reformers throughout history have used the image of the poor dead, destitute or dying child as a symbol for their cause - the Victorian middle-classes of course being a prime example for almost sickly depictions of the innocent child being destroyed by the wickedness of social ills (Dickens being the master of course). We don't like children dying or losing their innocence; and the idea of a photo of a drowned child not plucking our heartstrings seems baffling. After all, the public opinion before the photo was decidedly negative towards the refugees; so people almost want to atone for their own failings. (Just like Victorian philanprophists fell over themselves to "give back to society" once they were sufficiently shamed by Tiny Tim being a mawkish fool). A dead child can only represent a victim, and we are emphatic enough to link the face of the dead boy with the own children we have in our families. Is such a reaction a bad thing? Maybe it's hypocritical (and a bit bandwagonish) but I find it comforting, that even in these uncertain times people still have not lost that emphatic touch. Maybe when we are all automatons we will be able to freely gaze on the death of children and think "well that's sad and all, but part of the real world". But we aren't at that point in society yet, and (apologies to disagree with Cassius) I will be very sad when that day comes.