Selene

Finally! An up front feminist political group that we can all "support" well sort of...

Recommended Posts

Take that you prudes!

What is GoTopless.org?

We are a U.S.-based organization founded in 2007 by spiritual leader Rael and we claim that women have the same constitutional right that men have to go bare-chested in public.

"As long as men are allowed to be topless in public, women should have the same constitutional right. Or else, men should have to wear something to hide their chests" Rael, founder of GoTopless.org and spiritual leader of the Raelian Movement (rael.org)

FREE YOUR BREASTS! FREE YOUR MIND!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take that you prudes!

What is GoTopless.org?

We are a U.S.-based organization founded in 2007 by spiritual leader Rael and we claim that women have the same constitutional right that men have to go bare-chested in public.

"As long as men are allowed to be topless in public, women should have the same constitutional right. Or else, men should have to wear something to hide their chests" Rael, founder of GoTopless.org and spiritual leader of the Raelian Movement (rael.org)

FREE YOUR BREASTS! FREE YOUR MIND!

The Raelians!! they are feminist like L.ron hubbard was a theologian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take that you prudes!

What is GoTopless.org?

We are a U.S.-based organization founded in 2007 by spiritual leader Rael and we claim that women have the same constitutional right that men have to go bare-chested in public.

"As long as men are allowed to be topless in public, women should have the same constitutional right. Or else, men should have to wear something to hide their chests" Rael, founder of GoTopless.org and spiritual leader of the Raelian Movement (rael.org)

FREE YOUR BREASTS! FREE YOUR MIND!

The Raelians!! they are feminist like L.ron hubbard was a theologian.

Carol:

I had never heard of a Raelian before this thread that I started.

Wiki Raelians here

I believe your assessment is quite on point.

However, at least Phil has a home religion that he would "feel" comfortable with. He can even apply some of his physics building trusses for the exceptionally grandiose examples of their "parishioners."

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take that you prudes!

What is GoTopless.org?

We are a U.S.-based organization founded in 2007 by spiritual leader Rael and we claim that women have the same constitutional right that men have to go bare-chested in public.

"As long as men are allowed to be topless in public, women should have the same constitutional right. Or else, men should have to wear something to hide their chests" Rael, founder of GoTopless.org and spiritual leader of the Raelian Movement (rael.org)

FREE YOUR BREASTS! FREE YOUR MIND!

The Raelians!! they are feminist like L.ron hubbard was a theologian.

Carol:

I had never heard of a Raelian before this thread that I started.

Wiki Raelians here

I believe your assessment is quite on point.

However, at least Phil has a home religion that he would "feel" comfortable with. He can even apply some of his physics building trusses for the exceptionally grandiose examples of their "parishioners."

Adam

Well, that's a relief. If Phil has an inner Howard Hughes, viva engineering.

I can't pretend to know how men feel about their bare chests being stared at by the general public. I would guess pretty indifferent. As a feminist with breasts which I was told were fairly aesthetically acceptable in my youth, I have never felt any desire to have them looked over by the public. These days of silicone do give me some political twinges... but I'll spare you.

Vivent les differences, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually once wrote an article on the similarities between Raelianism and Objectivism. I don't agree with Raelianism but at the very least their religion doesn't violate any axioms, which is more than I can say for Christianity or Scientology.

That said, the site does have a point. What makes the nipples of women more offensive than the nipples of men? It seems a pretty subjective judgment, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually once wrote an article on the similarities between Raelianism and Objectivism. I don't agree with Raelianism but at the very least their religion doesn't violate any axioms, which is more than I can say for Christianity or Scientology.

That said, the site does have a point. What makes the nipples of women more offensive than the nipples of men? It seems a pretty subjective judgment, really.

Andrew, come on. Nipples are not offensive, they are just nipples. It is the owners of the nipples who care to have them looked at or not, you are viewiing this issue inside out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, come on. Nipples are not offensive, they are just nipples. It is the owners of the nipples who care to have them looked at or not, you are viewiing this issue inside out.

From reading their site, gotopless.org is protesting against the legal double standard embodied in making female toplessness illegal, whilst having no laws against male toplessness.

They aren't attempting to mandate toplessness. They're arguing that both men and women should be legally permitted to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to go topless or to wear tops.

If any man or woman doesn't want to have her nipples gazed at, they are absolutely welcome to wear concealing clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that the founder was on LSD when he had his first vision. Which is perfect.

If Acid had a faith, this would be it :P

It is likely just another publicity stunt, a few years ago they claimed to have cloned a human and our fearless mainstream media gobbled the ploy up hook, line, and sinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew/Carol:

Andrew is completely correct in terms of the discrimination in the law.

Additionally, women's breasts have the singular ability to feed a child which sets that one additional function into a "special" category.

Furthermore, although it is inaccurate, women's breast/nipples are culturally more present as sexual centers than a males breasts/nipples are viewed culturally as sexual centers.

Of course, any attentive and knowledgeable lover knows that a males breasts/nipples can be, and are, centers of pleasure, but not as socially accepted.

Hence, the subtle legal prejudice that was ensconced in the statute by puritanical male legislators.

In a sane society, let alone a free society, it should be perfectly legal for a woman, or a man, to be bare chested or clothed.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that the founder was on LSD when he had his first vision. Which is perfect.

If Acid had a faith, this would be it :P

It is likely just another publicity stunt, a few years ago they claimed to have cloned a human and our fearless mainstream media gobbled the ploy up hook, line, and sinker.

I remember that,weren't they in Quebec? Only in Canuckistan , eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, the site does have a point. What makes the nipples of women more offensive than the nipples of men? It seems a pretty subjective judgment, really.

The female breast is a strong sexual 'sign stimulus'.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, the site does have a point. What makes the nipples of women more offensive than the nipples of men? It seems a pretty subjective judgment, really.

The female breast is a strong sexual 'sign stimulus'.

What about to a homosexual, or bi-sexual man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, the site does have a point. What makes the nipples of women more offensive than the nipples of men? It seems a pretty subjective judgment, really.

The female breast is a strong sexual 'sign stimulus'.

What about to a homosexual, or bi-sexual man?

A homosexual man would not react to a female breast as sexually stimulating I suppose. :)

The bisexual man would probably react to female breasts that way (in addition to reacting to male sexual sign stimuli).

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all opposite-sex-attracted (i.e. heterosexual and bisexual) men are obsessed with breasts. Some are much more fond of the female buttocks.

That said, many opposite-sex-attracted women find topless men to be very erotic, as do many (possibly most) same-sex-attracted (i.e. homosexual and bisexual) men.

So no, I don't think its true that topless women are inherently more sexually stimulating "in total" than topless men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all opposite-sex-attracted (i.e. heterosexual and bisexual) men are obsessed with breasts. Some are much more fond of the female buttocks.

My comment was to be understood as a general remark.

As for the female buttocks as a sexual attractor, this is not surprising; after all, for many millenia, the sexual act had been performed exclusively a tergo.

As for the sexual attractiveness of male buttocks to women, evolutionists say that lean muscular male buttocks suggested to the female that this was a "good runner and hunter" and therefore more likely to provide food for her and her offspring.

That said, many opposite-sex-attracted women find topless men to be very erotic, as do many (possibly most) same-sex-attracted (i.e. homosexual and bisexual) men.

No doubt topless men can be perceived as erotic. I'm sure that in summer, topless bronzed and well-muscled construction workers will get quite a few appreciating glances by many women and same-sex-attracted men.

But considering all that, wouldn't the Raelian claim 'right to toplessness for everybody and everywhere' actually add even more sexual atmosphere to public life than we already have?

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all opposite-sex-attracted (i.e. heterosexual and bisexual) men are obsessed with breasts. Some are much more fond of the female buttocks.

My comment was to be understood as a general remark.

As for the female buttocks as a sexual attractor, this is not surprising; after all, for many millenia, the sexual act had been performed exclusively a tergo.

As for the attractiveness of male buttocks to women, evolutionists say that lean muscular male buttocks suggested to the female: "good runner and hunter" and therefore more likely to provide food for her and her offspring.

That said, many opposite-sex-attracted women find topless men to be very erotic, as do many (possibly most) same-sex-attracted (i.e. homosexual and bisexual) men.

No doubt topless men can be perceived as erotic. I'm sure topless well-muscled construction workers in summer get quite a few appreciating glances by many women. :)

All that considered, wouldn't the Raelians' advocating the right go topless everywhere actually add even more sexual atmosphere to public life than we already have?

The point I'm making is that the "female breasts are more sexual" justification for the legal double standard banning female toplessness is a very weak argument. I still can't see any rational basis for the law to treat female toplessness differently to male toplessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I'm making is that the "female breasts are more sexual" justification for the legal double standard banning female toplessness is a very weak argument. I still can't see any rational basis for the law to treat female toplessness differently to male toplessness.

I can see your point, but still am not convinced that female toplessness is less sexual.

Female breasts are definitely an erogenous zone, far more than male breasts.

When we look at our closest non-human relatives, the chimpanzees, the females don't have much developed breasts, they merely seem to be slightly enlarged during nursing.

There exist theories that the larger human female breasts as a sexual attractor and erogenous zone developed in the course of Evolution when copulation was no longer exclusively performed a tergo, but males and females also performed the sexual act facing each other.

Also, seeing a female with well-developed breasts may have suggested to the male that she was fertile and healthy enough to adequately nurse his possible offspring.

Virtually every woman is acutely aware of the erotic signifincance of female breasts, which explains women's efforts to keep them in shape, to use sexy lingerie to enhance their seductiveness, or to 'improve' them through plastic surgery.

Now one could of course argue: "So what? Why can't women proudly flaunt their sexy breasts in public?"

And if you ask me, this is exactly what the Raelians really are after. :D

From the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism

Rael's Girls solely consists of women who work in the sex industry.

No surprise there. See above.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this reminds me of one of my most robust limericks...

There was a young lady who begat...

Three kids named...

Nat...

Pat...and

Tat...

It was fun in the breeding, but

hell in the feeding,

for she found there was no tit for Tat!

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I'm making is that the "female breasts are more sexual" justification for the legal double standard banning female toplessness is a very weak argument. I still can't see any rational basis for the law to treat female toplessness differently to male toplessness.

I can see your point, but still am not convinced that female toplessness is less sexual.

I'm not arguing that it is less sexual. I'm arguing that both male and female toplessness are equally sexual.

Female breasts are definitely an erogenous zone, far more than male breasts.

Both male and female armpits are technically erogenous zones (i.e. very sensitive skin with high numbers of nerve endings) too, yet we don't make it illegal to expose these. Same with the arches of the feet. And again, the male nipples are clear erogenous zones, and these can be exposed without any legal penalty.

Virtually every woman is acutely aware of the erotic signifincance of female breasts, which explains women's efforts to keep them in shape, to use sexy lingerie to enhance their seductiveness, or to 'improve' them through plastic surgery.

Just as virtually every man is acutely aware of the erotic significance of having a well-muscled, bronzed torso, which explains a hell of a lot of bodybuilding, tight t-shirts (and/or toplessness) in men, and the use of anabolic steroids (and even plastic surgery).

Now one could of course argue: "So what? Why can't women proudly flaunt their sexy breasts in public?"

And if you ask me, this is exactly what the Raelians really are after. :D

Even if this is true, why does it matter? Unless, of course, you happen to subscribe to the radical misandrist-feminist belief that ANYTHING which any male might find even remotely appealling somehow degrades, objectifies and subjugates women (which would logically lead to Burqa Feminism).

From the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism

Rael's Girls solely consists of women who work in the sex industry.

No surprise there. See above.

Religious prostitution isn't exactly new. It existed in plenty of pre-Christian faiths. Not all forms of spirituality are Platonic, Flesh-Hating and Anti-Sex. Many forms of neopaganism, for instance, regard sex for pleasure as sacred and beautiful.

But, no, OBVIOUSLY any woman that works in the sex industry MUST necessarily have internalized her oppression under Patriarchy [/sarcasm].

Additionally, you are trying to discredit GoTopless by arguing they have a secret motivation. This is a blatant logical fallacy and has nothing to do with whether or not the case GoTopless is making is correct or incorrect.

The argument made by GoTopless is that there is no rational basis for treating male and female toplessness unequally, therefore the current regime where male toplessness is okay and female toplessness is illegal is a clear case of unequal treatment under law, therefore the current regime must be changed.

Just because quite a few guys (and quite a few girls, for that matter!) might find more frequent sightings of bare breasts to be appealling is irrelevant to the argument.

Full disclosure: I'm a dude and I think breasts can be very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this reminds me of one of my most robust limericks...

There was a young lady who begat...

Three kids named...

Nat...

Pat...and

Tat...

It was fun in the breeding, but

hell in the feeding,

for she found there was no tit for Tat!

Punny punchline, lol! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew's argument is solid, whether or not, some Raelian females, were in the "sex" industry, however we are going to define that! Hell, a good argument could be made that marriage is a legal embodiment of the "sex" industry!

Angela, you inject a lot of ancillary information about primitive sexual markers which I agree exist, but your last statement about the Raelian women is off key to the argument.

As Andrew notes, religious sexuality exists throughout human history. The issue before the bar here is the equal protection under the law of "toplessness." Do you support changing the law or not?

If you follow the footnote on your Wiki citation, we discover that:

1) "The Raelians are unlike any other religion in the world since they do not believe in God at all. But it's their other beliefs that are more likely to raise hackles among other faiths."

2) "When the adult video industry held its annual convention in Las Vegas earlier this year, it attracted the usual assortment of porn stars, sex merchants, and switch hitters, but tucked in among the bawdy booths and abundant cleavage were religious ambassadors, including J.C.'s girls, former strippers and escorts who've found Jesus and quit the biz."

3) "The yin to their yang, are Rael's girls, made up of Raelian sex workers who think there's nothing wrong with sexual freedom and that there's no need for strippers or hookers to repent at all."

4) "Rael, the founder of Raelian Movement, said, "I hope everyone in this room, when your child or grandchild is sick, you don't run to a church or temple, you run to a hospital because you prefer science."

The Raelians have been slammed by other religions as perverts, Satanists, pedophiles, racists, and a lot more. Death threats are not uncommon. But if there's any spot where their core philosophy should fit, this could be it.

'Pleasure is good. We are created for pleasure. And every moment of our life is for pleasure. Whether it's to eat, pay your taxes so you don't go to jail, either we do it for pleasure or for the avoidance of displeasure. It's very fundamental. It's how we were made. It's why we were made,' explained Ricky Roehr."

Las Vegas Raelians

This reminds me of the Priestesses in Stranger in a Strange Land, where Michael Valentine Smith, "...investigates the Fosterite Church of the New Revelation, a populist megachurch where sex, gambling, drinking and other earthly pleasures are not considered sinful but encouraged, even within the church building. The church is organized in a complexity of initiatory levels; an outer circle, open to the public; a middle circle of ordinary members who support the church financially; and an inner circle of the "eternally saved" — attractive, highly sexed men and women, who serve as clergy and recruit new members. The Church owns many politicians and takes violent action against those who oppose it. Smith also has a brief career as a magician in a carnival where he and Jill share water with the tattooed lady in the show, an "eternally saved" Fosterite woman named Patricia Paiwonski. Eventually Smith starts a Martian-influenced "Church of All Worlds," which teaches its members how to rise above suffering.

Wiki cite

or,

the Bene Gesserit in Dune, "The Reverend Mother must combine the seductive wiles of a courtesan with the untouchable majesty of a virgin goddess, holding these attributes in tension so long as the powers of her youth endure. For when youth and beauty have gone, she will find that the place-between, once occupied by tension, has become a wellspring of cunning and resourcefulness." Wiki cite

—from
Muad'Dib, Family Commentaries
by the Princess Irulan

I think the Raelians are rather amusing myself and they happen to be correct on this issue, as is Andrew.

Adam

naked nipples for peace!!!!

.

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both male and female armpits are technically erogenous zones (i.e. very sensitive skin with high numbers of nerve endings) too, yet we don't make it illegal to expose these. Same with the arches of the feet. And again, the male nipples are clear erogenous zones, and these can be exposed without any legal penalty.

If you define erogenous zones that broadly, then nearly all body parts can qualify as erogenous zones: ears, soles of the feet, toes, thighs, back, nape of the neck. etc.

[Xray]: Virtually every woman is acutely aware of the erotic signifincance of female breasts, which explains women's efforts to keep them in shape, to use sexy lingerie to enhance their seductiveness, or to 'improve' them through plastic surgery.

Just as virtually every man is acutely aware of the erotic significance of having a well-muscled, bronzed torso, which explains a hell of a lot of bodybuilding, tight t-shirts (and/or toplessness) in men, and the use of anabolic steroids (and even plastic surgery).

I think men's efforts in bodybuilding resemble more women's efforts to keep overall in shape than the presenting of a special erogenous zone.

So the well-muscled young man flaunting his sixpack conveys "I'm a sexy man", just as a well-shaped young woman flaunting her body in tight shorts and a spaghetti top conveys "I'm a sexy woman". "Sexy" translated biologically as "likely to produce offspring".

Additionally, you are trying to discredit GoTopless by arguing they have a secret motivation.

The motivation is not secret. Actually it is pretty unveiled, pun intended. ;)

[Xray]: Now one could of course argue: "So what? Why can't women proudly flaunt their sexy breasts in public?"

And if you ask me, this is exactly what the Raelians really are after. :D

Even if this is true, why does it matter? Unless, of course, you happen to subscribe to the radical misandrist-feminist belief that ANYTHING which any male might find even remotely appealling somehow degrades, objectifies and subjugates women (which would logically lead to Burqa Feminism).

Maybe I should have given clearer signals right from the start that I find that all that Rael hullabaloo about going topless mostly amusing.

And you are of course right (I'll stand corrected) that there exists no plausible legal reason to forbid women (but this would include women of all ages then) to expose their breasts as well.

Here in Germany, women can legally go topless on public beaches (the law in the US is more strict it seems).

And in the city where I live, there even exists, in a public park, a so-called "nude meadow" frequented by nude sunbathers. The nude meadow has become a tourist attraction, but tourists beware: it's not aways a pretty sight.

When I was in my teens in the early 1970s, this was the time when women burnt their bras in public as an alleged symbol of "oppression".

But when you look at it from the perspective of "rational selfishness", the bra is culture's wonder weapon to prevent gravity from doing its work. Eve's little helper, so to speak. :)

I suppose feminists would fly off the handle reading such statements from a fellow sister, but what I stated above is a fact they can't refute. ;)

"Toplessness for everyone" advocates should also keep in mind that they may not always get what they have bargained for.

So they can't complain then if old women bare their breasts too. They already are doing it here on public beaches. Not many, but some.

But do we really want to look at that? Well, I don't.

I'd also have substantial problems imagining the 56-year-old German chancellor Angela Merkel sitting bare-breasted in political negotiations ...

But as I have to admit, an argument from a purely esthetical perspective won't cut it when it comes to legal decisions.

What can objectively be observed is that that moral standards keep changing and that many of these changes have finally found their way into the law. Who for example would have thought, only a few decades ago, that same sex marriage would one day be possible?

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are of course right (I'll stand corrected) that there exists no plausible legal reason to forbid women (but this would includes women all ages then) to expose their breasts as well.

I'd also have substantial problems imagining the 56-year-old German chancellor Angela Merkel sitting bare-breasted in political negotiations ...

Excellent, then we all agree...

Now, can you create an image of Angela Merkel sitting bare-breasted in political negotiations wearing these...

t-spa-2124.jpg

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

it tolls for thee.

Or, we could think of Metallica's:

Make his fight on the hill in the early day

Constant chill deep inside

Shouting gun, on they run through the endless gray

On they fight, for they are right, yes, but who's to say?

For a hill, men would kill. Why? They do not know

Stiffend wounds test their pride

Men of five, still alive through the raging glow

Gone insane from the pain that they surely know

For whom the bell tolls

Time marches on

For whom the bell tolls

Take a look to the sky just before you die

It's the last time you will

Blackened roar, massive roar, fills the crumbling sky

Shattered goal fills his soul with a ruthless cry

Stranger now are his eyes to this mystery

He hears the silence so loud

Crack of dawn, all is gone except the will to be

Now they see what will be, blinded eyes to see

For whom the bell tolls

Time marches on

For whom the bell tolls

But it would certainly spice up the political negotiations...don't you think?

Adam

seeking new paths to ending long drawn out "political negotiations"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you are of course right (I'll stand corrected) that there exists no plausible legal reason to forbid women (but this would include women of all ages then) to expose their breasts as well.

Then we are in agreement.

The issue is not "we want to see more nice (and not ugly) boobies," but equal treatment under law.

Naturally, there will be both positive and negative externalities generated by more toplessness. But that's not an essential issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...