The topless parade. Pride or Shame?

[Cassius]

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.

[Cassius]

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.

Explain. 

Well, it physically harms no-one, other than the proverbial guy who gets distracted (as we men, regrettably, do) and walks into a lamp post or crashes his car. However, if we apply a broad definition of harm to include discomfiture, then having these, ah, items on display most certainly will cause discomfiture and embarrassment for many, and thus harm.

Although I would like to add that I'm not exactly on board with the whole 'well if it harms no-one what's the problem' argument, given that it's a fairly short term argument that doesn't address what might happen to society as a whole should this type of thing come to be widely accepted.

[Cassius]

I like topless women (heterosexual normal)

So do I. Indoors. In bed.

Why is it anybody's job to cater to somebody else's irrational ideas about what makes them uncomfortable? Can't you extend this pretty easily into women having to wear more modest dress in general because it would make people uncomfortable otherwise?

Hardly irrational. I don't want to see the body part that is informally, yet widely, recognised as having deeply sexual connotations in situations where those connotations are inappropriate.

[Cassius]

Topless women are not objectively harmful. Yes, it can be offensive and make people uncomfortable, but there are plenty of things are offensive or make people uncomfortable, that aren't illegal.

Also, female nipples have no public health issues that would apply to men's and women's genitals.

Our society considers massive cleavage acceptable, but women's nipples off limits, even though both can be sexually arousing.

America has very hypocritical attitudes with allowing far more exposure to violence than to sexuality/nudity.

People need more exposure to violence. They don't need more exposure to sex and nudity.

[Cassius]

Topless women are not objectively harmful. Yes, it can be offensive and make people uncomfortable, but there are plenty of things are offensive or make people uncomfortable, that aren't illegal.

Also, female nipples have no public health issues that would apply to men's and women's genitals.

Our society considers massive cleavage acceptable, but women's nipples off limits, even though both can be sexually arousing.

America has very hypocritical attitudes with allowing far more exposure to violence than to sexuality/nudity.

People need more exposure to violence. They don't need more exposure to sex and nudity.

you HAVE to be trolling now

Well, I was phrasing my point in a somewhat unserious manner. However, I do believe that, while nowadays a lot of people are absolutely swamped in sexual stuff, whether it be online pornography, or 'artistic' depictions of sex or even simple discussion of sex, humans (in the West primarily) are ever more cut off from any kind of understanding and acceptance of violence and death. Things were different back in the day of course; most men would have fought in some military conflict, and those who hadn't would likely know someone who did, as was the case for women (although of course some women actually did fight in conflicts). Also, many families would know the trauma of losing a close loved one, whether it was from war, or, just as often, disease. Figures of authority weren't so inclined to shirk away from the rather harsh reality of life, which is that many people die, and not all of then for good or noble reasons.

Now, I'm not saying that the decline of military conflicts and falling rates of infant mortality and fatal illness in the West are bad things; I am very happy not to have been almost worked to death in a Japanese POW camp like my grandfather, and to have not died in the cradle as so many more babies used to do. I believe changes in these areas have been positive advancements. On the other hand, I believe that the decoupling of human life, for many people, from the regular experience of death and violence has not been a good thing either. I mean, take, for example, that photo of a dead Syrian child that caused so much fuss a few days ago. This, of course, is partly an example of the general awfulness of a lot of tabloid journalism, as with it's frankly cringe worthy coverage of the deaths of Princess Diana and Jade Goody respectively (I imagine you may not have heard of Jade Goody; consider yourself lucky). However, the reactions of many people to that photo were as, kf not more cringe worthy than the coverage itself. I mean you just had this ridiculous, never ending outpouring of online grief and, to quote Shakespeare, clamorous whining, from many people, over the fact that one child had died. I mean, when I saw that photo, I briefly felt sorry for the child and it's family, but then, you know, I moved on with my life, because I didn't know the kid and there was nothing that I could do to bring back the child anyway.

Some people, as I said before, thought rather differently, and launched themselves into this bizarre online campaign called 'refugees welcome'. I mean, let me be clear, migrants have been dying in droves for the past few months; in fact they've been dying on these types of journeys for decades. Yet of course because you didn't have photographers going around, snapping photos of dead children and pasting them onto news websites, the vast majority of westerners were protected from having to confront this sort of thing; living in their cosy, cosseted world in which violence and death only happen in far away places and in the movies. Then, the image of one dead child drives these people into a frenzy. My own simple view is that behaviour like this is pretty, well, pathetic and pointless, just as it was over the death of that goddamn lion (although that was even more ridiculous). People need to learn to accept and deal with the continuing issue of death and destruction in this world, and to learn, if need be, how to control their emotional response to these things. People should be wailing and gnashing their teeth (in 8 hopefully) when a loved parent or spouse dies, no when a lion or a child that they'd never met bites the dust. As I said at the start of my post, this is difficult for many because of their usual isolation from these issues (and of course because of the decline in any coherent belief in life after death, but that's a topic for another post). But people need to try, not least for the sake of my Facebook feed not being overrun with stomach churning paeans to the aforementioned dead lion or child from 'x, studies Sports Science and Colonic Irrigation at the University of Y Met'.