Anonymous #3 1w

Bro tell me what’s fundamentally different between a small chested woman and a man with moobs. A nipple is a nipple. It’s religious propaganda thats so aged we all just take it as common sense but there’s nothing logical about it

6

Anonymous #2 1w

In colder climates covering up in lots of layers becomes necessary so it sorta gets baked in with religious and cultural practice. In warmer climates the nomrs are different. Often clothing is downstream of our adaptions to climate

5

Anonymous oranguru 1w

For sure, clothing is an essential technology. Still, the idea that nudity anywhere or any time (even if the climate permits it) is wrong is something based in religion, not a need for comfort

12

Anonymous #2 1w

Yes you make a good point. A modest Christian person will still be modestly dressed in a hot climate. I do think tho that religious doctrine is often related to physiological needs. I might be wrong but I believe halal and kosher food laws have a practical grounding but I might be wrong

1

Anonymous oranguru 1w

Some religious traditions having logical grounding (food safety and health in the case of your example) doesn’t mean that all do. If so then we should be able to point to some biological or psychological harm from humans being nude but there really isn’t one. It’s purely cultural

8

Anonymous #2 1w

I would say there is if you lived in Northern Europe. But it’s definitely true that you didn’t really need to dress modestly in the climates where Christianity and Islam began.

1

Anonymous oranguru 1w

Well yeah that was my point above, ig it wasn’t explicit tho. Yes living in a climate where being outdoors naked will kill you means that there are biological downsides to being nude. However soon after developing the technology for clothes any of these cultures would’ve developed shelter too, places where they could be safely naked without bodily harm. Past that the decision to NEVER be naked publicly is a cultural thing, not a biological health thing

4

Anonymous #2 1w

Ah I see. This is an interesting point. In principle there’s no reason besides religious/cultural context that we should not be naked in our homes. Thanks for explaining it I didn’t really see it

1

Anonymous oranguru 1w

Yeah sorry ig I can see how it wasn’t clear. Not just homes tho, public gathering spaces too. Lots of native tribes had indoor spaces where it was comfortable enough to be nude or partially nude and it was the norm to do so

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Also idk who’s downvoting you but it’s not me, I always appreciate a conversation!

5

Anonymous #3 1w

I mean I’m a man and when I go for my morning jog in the summertime, I’m running around town in no shirt and 7” inseam shorts, and that’s fully legal, so clearly the same restraints do not in fact exist for men. I’m shirtless in public regularly if the situation calls for it.

2

Anonymous #3 1w

i garauntee you no women are truing to go topless😂

4

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah, because men (not all, but enough) are a threat. I talked about this in a PoliSci class I took about women in politics when we were on the subject of catcalling. When a woman gets catcalled on the street, they feel fear that the catcaller might follow them, do them harm, etc. but when I’ve been out on a jog and gotten catcalled by a group of girls, that shit made my day

5

Anonymous stanczyk 1w

why?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I mean that’s just objectively false lmao, you see that in a lot of places. It’s not even illegal in lots of places in the US

11

Anonymous #2 1w

religion and patriarchy are intertwined

-1

Anonymous #5 1w

yes exactly

6

Anonymous #5 1w

Also yeah I’m a runner myself and I’m always struck by how absurd it is that I can run shirtless no problem but women can’t. Like if you’re big chested there’s a practical reason absolutely but otherwise they’re just wearing a useless garment bc someone decided forever ago that certain types of nipples should be sexualized and others shouldn’t. Pretty odd

5

Anonymous OP 1w

Yeah fs, my point was more like an order of operations thing. In the beginning it was religion saying that humans should cover themselves and be ashamed of their bodies. Then from there it was the patriarchy setting up more strict expectations and harsher judgements of women within that framework

2

Anonymous #2 1w

So I think it’s legal for women to be topless in public in Chicago, and I was there in late July, peak heat in the summertime, and I saw one (1) woman be topless for a couple seconds when she changed from a shirt to a swimsuit top go swim in Lake Michigan. Even where it’s legal, it’s still not common.

6

Anonymous #5 1w

I wasn’t looking for it though and only saw that because I was in the park smoking a joint facing Lake Michigan before I went for a stoned swim myself, and she just happened to be in front of me. Maybe it happens all the time and I just wasn’t paying attention.

4

Anonymous #5 1w

Nah I mean you’re right it being legal in many places doesn’t mean that it’s super common and I totally get why. 1. Right or wrong it is the culture we’re a part of and that culture finds topless women to be something notable and worth reaction and scrutiny. It probably just feels weird! But 2. It’s gotta be a safety / keeping creeps away thing too. I can absolutely understand not wanting the attention

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Also side note high swimming sounds fun asf! I’ve never done it but I’d love to try, is the lake warm enough tho? I’m down in stl but go to Chicago on occasion. High running also slaps if you’ve never tried it

1

Anonymous #10 1w

I fear you drastically missed the point

-1

Anonymous #8 1w

all religion oppresses women

0

Anonymous #9 1w

you missed the point

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

high swimming is extremely fun, i would highly reccomend. be safe tho

1

Anonymous #7 1w

we're not talking about a womans bare breasts or ass we're talking about legs, middrift, shoulders, etc.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

The lake is chilly enough to be really nice after walking around the city in the summer heat, but not so cold it’s unbearable lol people swim there all the time, it’s not Superior

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Who tf thinks shoulders are inappropriate this isn’t 1892

1

Anonymous #7 1w

you would be fucking surprised

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Nah I think you’re just lashing out at a school dress code that no longer applies

3

Anonymous #7 1w

Ngl this is sort of a wild inversion. Someone not covering themselves to your standards is assault on your eyes? I feel like you could find communities where people share those values and have dress codes to match but the rest of us shouldn’t have to adhere to arbitrary standards to please others, it’s just a body

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

So by this logic we shouldn’t have laws against indecent exposure?

5

Anonymous #7 1w

I don’t think so no. If someone exposes themselves then assaults someone then charge them for assault. There’s nothing inherently wrong about seeing a human body

-2

Anonymous #2 1w

And if your religion says that there should be then that’s your business

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

Go find a nudist colony and leave those of us who enjoy civilization alone

7

Anonymous #7 1w

Nah I’m just ahead of the curve fr 😮‍💨 it would’ve been insane for women to show their stomachs in public 200 years ago and look where we are today. Things will progress and look very different 200 years from now 🙏

0

Anonymous #7 1w

nope i have nothing against current school dress codes I'm talking about grown men calling grown women sluts for wearing a mini skirt in a club or a sports bra in the gym

6

Anonymous OP 1w

No.

4

Anonymous #8 1w

Dawg what? Name a major religion that isn’t oppressive towards women?

2

Anonymous #2 1w

Christianity.

0

Anonymous #8 1w

really bc christians saying women should submit to their husbands and bear children isnt super liberating

1