Swedish Women Go Topless to Protest Swim Wear Rules

[flaming infinity]

So, what about the women in the pics that aren't wearing anything at all? Are they doubly breaking the rules? (not that I'd complain)

[IceStar]

I hate to be the honest one here. I could just see the poor pool also getting sued when one of the beauties get raped. Or the pool money going down the drain when Parent stop bringing ther kids.

Doing life guard duty 90% of are money came from kids. So the pools stand to lose no matter what.

Before you say adult male will make up for it. Hit a nude beath for every nice looking toppless chick. There 10 Jabba the Hutts.

[tdheynes]

But why would a woman NOT wearing a bikini get raped? If she's wearing a bikini it's not like there's much difference, her form is still there to be seen so I think the question of whether someone would get raped because they're topless is a bit far fetched.

Although I agree on the nude beach stuff. The majority of them aren't that attractive but I doubt they care. After all, they go there for their own fun not for the enjoyment of others.

[jermoore]

About the "children" part of it... if there weren't rules against women going topless, it would be normal, and nobody would feel a need to hide such things from children. That was just about THE most counter-intuitive argument I've ever read, IceStar...

[flaming infinity]

Originally Posted by IceStar

I hate to be the honest one here. I could just see the poor pool also getting sued when one of the beauties get raped. Or the pool money going down the drain when Parent stop bringing ther kids.

Doing life guard duty 90% of are money came from kids. So the pools stand to lose no matter what.

Before you say adult male will make up for it. Hit a nude beath for every nice looking toppless chick. There 10 Jabba the Hutts.

We're talking about a country where women run around topless regularly.

[bigdan1110]

Originally Posted by flaming infinity

We're talking about a country where women run around topless regularly.

God bless Sweden !

[afspoker]

Originally Posted by flaming infinity

We're talking about a country where women run around topless regularly.

I hate to correct you there flaming, but we are talking about a country where women run around topless regularly.

I have never met an unattractive Swed. I am sure there are some, but I personally just have never met or seen one.

[IceStar]

Originally Posted by jermoore

About the "children" part of it... if there weren't rules against women going topless, it would be normal, and nobody would feel a need to hide such things from children. That was just about THE most counter-intuitive argument I've ever read, IceStar...

Say that as you like. There are nude beaches here to. Sad fact is it is not the norm. Women don't walk do the street topless all day long. They where clothes. It not like an African Villlage where a loin cloth is seen as fully clothed.

Parent have a right to take there kid to a wholesome place. Where tit are not hang out every where.

On this note who are they to tell owner how to run there pool. If it mean that much. Buy a pool set it up and run it how you like. Or go to those nude beach you love so much.

Next let let the men be nude. That will be next. I promise that also wanted over there.

Just remember this. As sex become more an more a part of culture. Are kid are having it younger and younger.


*Put on his boxing gloves and head gear.*

What can I say I disgree with them and hope there whole march fails.

[jermoore]

Ok, IceStar... just explain why men going topless is acceptable and women going topless is not? That's discrimination, plain and simple. Either women should be allowed to go topless anywhere men can, or men should be forced to wear tops anywhere a woman is. I'd prefer the former, but I'll accept whatever is decided, as long as it is a fair and equitable decision. The status-quo is not fair and equitable.

Edit: I'm not just picking on IceStar. I challenge anyone to give an answer other than sexist discrimination for my question. This isn't an issue of sexuality/"wholesomeness"... it's an issue of fairness and discrimination, period.

Edit (again): Anyone who insists that it's an issue of wholesomeness, I'm prepared to debate the Bible with you.

[JB13492]

Originally Posted by IceStar

Parent have a right to take there kid to a wholesome place. Where tit are not hang out every where.

Aren't nude beaches typically posted as so? Sure, parents have the right to take their kid to a wholesome place; just as they have a responsibility to keep them from certain places until they're old enough to handle it.

What's next? Banning R-rated movies using the same argument?

[ryansc1234]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that if we hadn't made breasts into something sexual they really wouldn't be. I am a firm believer in covering of the genitals in both men and women, however, I fell that women should be able to show their breasts due to the fact that they are not sexual organs. They are a source of nourishment plain and simple.

[flaming infinity]

Originally Posted by ryansc1234

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that if we hadn't made breasts into something sexual they really wouldn't be. I am a firm believer in covering of the genitals in both men and women, however, I fell that women should be able to show their breasts due to the fact that they are not sexual organs. They are a source of nourishment plain and simple.

I'm pretty sure Willow would have called you on that one. I doubt she'd like that idea very much being that she could only have orgasms by having her tits played with. There are a few other people here that would probably disagree with it, too, including some guys.

[JB13492]

Originally Posted by ryansc1234

I fell that women should be able to show their breasts due to the fact that they are not sexual organs. They are a source of nourishment plain and simple.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan! Dude, I have to disagree with you vehemently here! I was born a boob man, gonna die a boob man.
They are a source of FUN, plain and simple!

[cantswleepclownswillgetme]

Originally Posted by jermoore

Ok, IceStar... just explain why men going topless is acceptable and women going topless is not? That's discrimination, plain and simple. Either women should be allowed to go topless anywhere men can, or men should be forced to wear tops anywhere a woman is. I'd prefer the former, but I'll accept whatever is decided, as long as it is a fair and equitable decision. The status-quo is not fair and equitable.

Edit: I'm not just picking on IceStar. I challenge anyone to give an answer other than sexist discrimination for my question. This isn't an issue of sexuality/"wholesomeness"... it's an issue of fairness and discrimination, period.

Edit (again): Anyone who insists that it's an issue of wholesomeness, I'm prepared to debate the Bible with you.

So then you propose to eliminate breasts as part of a womans sexual appeal? I mean, isnt that what would have to happen to make that happen? Its not the same as a mans chest, you know it isnt. The sexes will never be physically equal, they cannot be. This is an issue of physical sexuality, and there will always be differences. But its not a discrimination issue.
If you mean to make breasts a non-sexual part of a woman, than to hell with that!!!

[jermoore]

Originally Posted by flaming infinity

I'm pretty sure Willow would have called you on that one. I doubt she'd like that idea very much being that she could only have orgasms by having her tits played with. There are a few other people here that would probably disagree with it, too, including some guys.

Some people can have an orgasm by having their ears nibbled on, or by massaging a spot on their foot. Does this mean ears and feet are sex organs?

Originally Posted by cantswleepclownswillgetme

So then you propose to eliminate breasts as part of a womans sexual appeal?

No more than I propose eliminating chiseled musculatures and six-pack abs as part of a man's sexual appeal.

Sexuality aside, it's just a fact of life that as a rule women's faces and bodies are more aesthetically pleasing than men's. Ask any artist, male or female, gay or straight... 9 out of 10 will tell you the same. It has nothing to do with sexuality. You didn't answer my question. Just saying that it's not discrimination doesn't make it not discrimination. If someone said that sending black kids to a different school from white kids isn't discrimination, would that make them right?

[cantswleepclownswillgetme]

Yeah, I know, that was kinda half formed thought .....
I guess it just doesnt seem to be a "discrimination" issue. Discrimination has negative overtones, and I dont really see that this does...... You brought up black and white segregation as an example, so lets use that.
There it would be discrimination because you would be saying a black man is less of a man, because of the color of his skin, wich is not true; a man is a man is a man, irregardless(or woman, whatever...). Here, it would be saying a man is a woman, and that there is no physical difference, wich is not true. There are actual, physical differences. Irrefutable ones, praise the deity of choice.
So, being that there are definate differences, is it truly a double standard?
Breasts are breasts, they are part of the reproductive system, and serve a very specific function therein. They also have attached significance, whether from religious, or social ..... beliefs? that a mans chest simply does not have. While women likely will have a strong physical attraction to a well defined chest, I doubt they would sit there and continue to stare at one endlessley as men will a woman.
But thats what they are trying to eliminate, isnt it?
Hmmm.
I dont know, beyond the fact that there is a real, marked difference between the sexes, I suppose it all comes down to feelings. I dont see the purpose in women being treated exactly the same as men in all things. Women are not men, and men are not women. There will always be different standards applied, at some level, and I just dont see this as being a negative one.

[exploded]

personly i think it is a good idea but.......

nahh hell with it let the children see the boobs

it is a great idea

[jermoore]

Originally Posted by cantswleepclownswillgetme

There it would be discrimination because you would be saying a black man is less of a man, because of the color of his skin, wich is not true; a man is a man is a man, irregardless(or woman, whatever...). Here, it would be saying a man is a woman, and that there is no physical difference, wich is not true. There are actual, physical differences.

Could one not say that skin color is an actual, physical difference? A person is a person, irregardless of gender or skin color. Why does one have different rights from another?

Breasts are breasts, they are part of the reproductive system, and serve a very specific function therein.

Here is a picture, courtesy of Wikipedia, of the female reproductive system. Please, show me where the breasts are in this picture.


I don't necessarily feel that men and women should be treated exactly the same, but I do believe they should have the same freedoms, the same rights, and the same responsibilities to society. That is my opinion, and that is more or less what these ladies in Sweden are asking for. Is it really that much to ask?

EDIT: Moved picture to ImageBam to reduce use of Wikipedia's bandwidth.

[cantswleepclownswillgetme]

Originally Posted by jermoore

Could one not say that skin color is an actual, physical difference? A person is a person, irregardless of gender or skin color. Why does one have different rights from another?

Because you still have a woman person, or a man person. You can think the same, act the same as the opposite sex, but you cannot be the same as the opposite sex. And yes, skin color is an actual physical difference, but even still you have white women, and white men, black women, and black men, asian women.... If everyone was blind, you would still be able to feel or even hear the difference.

Originally Posted by jermoore

Here is a picture, courtesy of Wikipedia, of the female reproductive system. Please, show me where the breasts are in this picture..

"Reproductive system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reproductive system is the ensembles and interactions of organs and/or substances within an organism that strictly pertain to reproduction. As an example, this would include in the case of female mammals, the hormone estrogen, ova, and the uterus and the vagina, and the breasts. This also includes gametes."
I dont know, maybe they figured there were enough pictures of breasts on the internet already?

Originally Posted by jermoore

I don't necessarily feel that men and women should be treated exactly the same, but I do believe they should have the same freedoms, the same rights, and the same responsibilities to society. That is my opinion, and that is more or less what these ladies in Sweden are asking for. Is it really that much to ask?

Well, see, thats where it gets confusing. Men and women, even in your opinion, shouldnt be treated the same. Because they are different, yes? To me, its not a denial of rights, its just a acknowledgment of the difference. Or, maybe an acknowledgement of the reaction to the differences? It really is kind of murky.
Basically, it seems to be a misdirected attempt to equalise something that will never be truly equal. In order to treat every other person exactly the same, you would have to think of every person in exactly the same way. The eventual continuation of that thought, would be, that there would have to be no physical attraction. So, is that what this is leading to? Whats the point in that?
I know I dont treat bare breasted women the same as non bare breasted women. I know I dont treat women the same as I treat men. At 04:00, it appears, is really all I know.

[flaming infinity]

Originally Posted by jermoore

Some people can have an orgasm by having their ears nibbled on, or by massaging a spot on their foot. Does this mean ears and feet are sex organs?

Yes, when you put it that way, ears and feet would count, too. Maybe I just like sex too much, though.