this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
1122 points (98.6% liked)

Today I Learned

18061 readers
982 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 27 points 2 months ago (7 children)

The prohibition on public exposure of breasts by women and girls over 10 years old is now gone from the city code as of this week.

I never thought I'd be conflicted on this, because I am absolutely of the opinion that female breasts and nipples shouldn't be treated as exclusively sexual body parts, especially since men have them too and we aren't held to that standard.

But being confronted with the idea that 10-17 year old girls can now bare their breasts in public without restraint reminds me that treating female bodies as non-sexual is great as an ethos, but it is not reflective of reality, and that this specifically could be problematic.

But how to solve it? You can't make it an 18+ only rule, or you're further entrenching the idea that female breasts are exclusively sexual and adult, but if you let teens and tweens go topless, they will be sexualized / ogled / photographed by adult men, and that's a bad precedent to set as acceptable. We usually treat photographs of underage female breasts as a form of CSAM, but can we still say that if we're treating female breasts as non-sexual? This is an interesting new line to draw, given societal attitudes on adolescent nudity.

Regretfully, I believe that the true problem is men. The reason women have to cover their breasts is because they have to protect themselves from men. I'm all for bodily liberation and the de-sexualization of female existence, but we need an overhaul on our society's attitudes towards women in general if we're going to get there. Maybe bare breasts help get us there. Maybe girls need to learn the right way how to kick a man in the balls before they go topless.

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 months ago

I feel like the simple solution is that if you can't have topless kids because of pervs, then you can't have topless kids and gender isn't part of it

[–] KuroiKaze@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Comments like this are why I left reddit. This is a completely hinged and totally reasonable thought process that calls in a question, a lot of facets of the issue and ways them against each other appropriately. Maybe something more crazy would spark a bunch more replies but I totally like that Lemmy is a place that just lets people be normal.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 12 points 2 months ago

To answer your question, it could be legal grey area because not all pictures depicting nudity are automatically considered pornographic, if you are speaking in terms of legal precedent regarding obscenity in the US.

To further muddy the issue, photographing other peoples kids is considered creepy by nearly everyone but it isn't expressly illegal unless certain localities have specific statutes against it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, so you have the potential situation where people are doing a presumptively legal activity in a public area where photographing that activity could be illegal depending on... intent?

Further, the courts have ruled that getting naked in public in the act of protesting something is part of protected speech. Presumably that applies to people of all ages and sexes as well but I doubt it has ever been tested.

[–] yamanii@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is a western society problem, in tribes where women don't cover their breasts the men are interested in other parts.

[–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Remember when ankles were sexy

[–] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

These fucking 304s walking around with their exposed ankles will never find a husband. How will they live without a husband to get a bank account for them? They’ll die miserable and destitute, and they’ll deserve it.

And I’m not an incel for saying so, because I have a kid! Checkmate, cucks!

[–] LemmyRefugee@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are inventing a problem that does not exist. Go take a walk where it is allowed and see how many girls are walking topless in the street.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's not necessarily because they don't want to. It's because in North American culture, it invites harassment. And then people like many of those posting in this thread will just say that they asked for it. So of fucking course women don't go topless in public.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/women-can-go-topless-in-ontario-but-they-don-t-want-to-fearing-harassment-1.3171257

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago

It's not necessarily because they don't want to.

I mean, it is because they don't want to ...

it invites harassment.

That's why they didn't want to.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The true problem is not a problem, it's the reality of human sexuality where most men and some women see female breasts as sexual most of time.

There are different situations where nudity of all kinds is not perceived sexually, that doesn't affect the general rule that I shouldn't run around the block all naked.

Saying it's not equal because men too have nipples and those are not perceived as sexual is kinda strange. Let's abolish pregnancy leaves then. Gender may be a social construct by now, sex is obviously not, and (most) humans are not hermaphrodites, so the rules can't be the same.

This is a nothing burger of a subject frankly, we already know that real world doesn't fit ideal ideas. If some ideal idea would describe the real world, then you'd only need that ideal idea to know it all and other information wouldn't matter. Some religious fanatics are actually trying, destroying all the knowledge and art not coming from their holy book.

This doesn't work, the real world is as complex as all the information in it. An action is good or bad only in a particular real situation.

Which is also why choosing a seemingly ideal enough principle and trying to fit it to everything, pretending that makes everyone equal, is a lie.

[–] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Women are allowed to walk around in sandals and no shoes at the beach despite foot fetishes being one of the most common paraphilias(behind breasts.)

You don't see women getting accosted by guys who like feet because they have their toes out and it's sexual to some guy nearby.

If dudes into feet can control themselves and be respectful then so can dudes into breasts when they are near a top less woman in public.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

As far as I'm concerned walking totally naked should be legal, though for practical implications of varying ass-wiping culture and genitals saying things we don't put into words, I suppose, it would be "everything is optional except pants".

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So you feel that women should be arrested and prosecutable if their nipples are exposed?

That's very misogynist. And no, you can't argue for the law to "save the women" from all those perverts. Because the whole point of this is to free women from the bullshit laws that allows society to prosecute them while pulling double duty by effectively shaming their bodies.

Most women are not going to run around topless voluntarily. But, even if they did - say a group of girls or women decided to go skinny dipping or whatever at a lake, do you really believe they should go to jail for that?

Don't mansplane and tell everyone these laws are for women's own good, because they aren't. Inventing this bizarre photographic scenario is just bizarre. It's a fiction of your imagination and is a straw man argument.

You are correct that the true problem is men, but not how you think it is.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

Are you okay? OP's post was pretty well written, and the guy only explained his moral dilemma without being disrespectful and you come shouting down like a banshee.

His point is a totally valid one and should be discussed to alleviate any moral dilemma to be had.