I've been arguing with someone about this (I don't think that having seperate laws for what constitutes partial nudity for men vs. woman is discrimination - the one thing that is undeniably different about men and woman is their physical makeup) and I'm curious to know what some of the rest of you think. (Well, to be honest, I'm also hoping to get some more good arguments for my side of the debate. I know. Cheating. Don't tell! ) But I really am interested in general opinions on the subject. Even just a quick stop-by to let me know whether you agree or disagree that treating topless men and women differently is discrimination woudl be great. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
If you want to know my frank opinion I really don't think a government ought to be making laws as to nudity and what amount of it is appropriate in public places. If someone wants to go nude, thats their choices and the government has no valid stance to regulate it on. The current stance is based on christian ideas of morality, which in this case are rather silly. Personally I like wearing clothing, I don't like having bear skin on certain parts of my body touch my surrounding environment, on the other hand I don't think I should go to jail if I decide I want to go for a hike in the nude. Its our natural state, we need to get over ourselves.
But since it is regulated, its only inappropriate if you say it is. In many cultures women go topless all the time. If there are women who want to go topless, then preventing them from going topless and allowing men to do so is indeed descrimination.
[ January 31, 2005, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
OSC did an essay about equality between men and women. He made some pretty good points. Hang on, I'll find it.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Here we go. It's not about equality between men and women, but the points still apply.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, goody. California's in the news for something that's not crazy fringe politics.
Personally, I think they're right. It is discrimination. Therefore, I support a law that re-criminalizes men going topless.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's fine with me. Then I might have a better chance of fooling girls into thinking I have muscles when I really don't, and they won't be able to see as much nearby to compare it to.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Men should be required to wear burkas at all times. Hatrack wenches are sooo excitable.
Come to think of it, suitable attire should be required to be worn under those burkas.
With a total ban on hand-held can openers.
[ January 31, 2005, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Rivka, it wont matter to me , I only go topless in my house!
Quite frankly I don't want to see other guys chests or guts overflowing. Hey maybe this is a good law. (Ok, I'm kidding about it being a good law.)
Wait, what on earth am I to do when I go swimming? Wear a shirt? Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Just wear one of those swimsuits that just cover the key areas. If you think about it, you'll actually be showing more of your body.
**wonders if it was a good idea to tell him that**
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
The other day, I saw a slightly flabby man wearing a tight, bright blue spandex outfit in the gym. I could clearly see the outline of his penis.
I was traumatized, and it should be illegal. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
CAUTION: A picture of Frisco's worse half lies beyond the link!!!
Some guys don't really care what they wear.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
All laws pertaining to what can and can't be worn are completely stupid, unless you're talking about a law against lederhosen.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Pretty sure topless sunbathing is legal in NY. Doesn't seem to have affected anything.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Women can walk around topless in NY. I know, because I went to a march where they did just that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I say that anybody with mammary glands must cover them up, whether they are male or female.
Is that fair enough?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
"I say that anybody with mammary glands must cover them up, whether they are male or female."
Why?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I believe he's merely pointing out that 90% of equal protection discussion is based on how one formulates the policy under discussion.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
St. Yogi -- for no new reason that you aren't already aware.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, if you didn't mean to point that out, it's still a good example of it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, you were right, Dag. But since I do believe that modesty is a good thing, and and that some levels of immodesty in public should be prohibited, I thought I'd go ahead and answer Yogi's question anyway.
[ January 31, 2005, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In a lot of places there's theoretically a prohibition on males being topless in many situations, its just those restrictions are often ignored. Usually when the courts are asked the question in instances I've seen the answer isn't that women can go topless, period, but that women can go topless anywhere men can go topless.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I think both sides are being silly. The side for top-down saying that women going topless will have to register as sex offenders. And the other side that asserts that crimes against women will only increase if women start sunbathing topless. C'mon. Get real.
I don't care either way, though I think anyone, male or female, going topless in inappropriate circumstances is socially inept. At the beach, it wouldn't offend me. In a restaurant or walking around the mall, it would. Shirts and shoes, puh-lease.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't care either way, though I think anyone, male or female, going topless in inappropriate circumstances is socially inept."
There's a distinction between being illegal and being inept.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Agreed...which is to say that I don't care if they make it legal for women to go topless in CA as long as women do it tastefully.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:St. Yogi -- for no new reason that you aren't already aware.
Would it test your restraint?
Would it be sinful?
Would you be afraid for the children who might be exposed to the horrors of the human body before marriage?
Do you fear that men who were unsure wether they wanted to rape a women would just be pushed over the edge by seeing them topless?
There are many reasons you might not want women to go around topless. Why did you not just answer Yogi's question?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll put it another way: I don't care if they make it legal for women to go topless even if women do it tastelessly.
The law does not have to reflect taste. If these women choose to be tasteless, that does not mean the law is inadequate; it means that the women are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why did you not just answer Yogi's question?
Yeah, MPH. Don't you know you have to answer every single question someone asks you!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
No of course you don't.
It is however common courtesy, especially in contrast with saying "my reason is nothing new". He didn't ask expecting some revolutionary answer.
EDITED: It just didn't sound right.
[ January 31, 2005, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You being the expert on common courtesy, right?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Sting.
No, I'm not, what's your point?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No point. Just trying to make the oblique point that the expectation of posts such as yours might have been a motivating factor.
Or not.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
My personal preference would be to have many people running around nude. This would most strikingly contrast the prim purity and virtue of my own long skirts and clogs.
And headcoverings. I am working on a selection of scarfs. At some point, I shouldn't be visible at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It would make for an interesting bedside manner, doc.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
So he didn't answer because he expected that someone would ask him why he hadn't answered?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Read the lines above that question.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dag, would you represent me if I were just a disembodied voice? (Pending certification, of course. Yours, not mine. I don't think there is a registry for disembodied voices.)
"Your Honor, my client has no hands to raise."
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
You mean my lines where I mocked him for being afraid of answering?
So, you are saying, that he was worried that his values might be challenged?
I think that says something about someones values when they are afraid to try and defend them, don't you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure. I'd have to figure out the whole eye-contact thing. Very important to make eye-contact with the jury, you know.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You mean my lines where I mocked him for being afraid of answering?
So, you are saying, that he was worried that his values might be challenged?
I think that says something about someones values when they are afraid to try and defend them, don't you?
No, he probably just didn't feel up to dealing with the boorish mocking he was expecting about those beliefs.
Funny you jumped right to a fear motive, though. Is that how we should interpret your motives whenever you don't respond to something?
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I could be like the ninja-smiley. Furtive eyes darting back and forth. I could do that.
Yeah sure, it's kinda shady-looking, but better than no eyes at all, eh?
*practices
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I could work with that. As long as the trial didn't concern a murder that involved stealth. Ninja connotations might be bad.
[ January 31, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: No, he probably just didn't feel up to dealing with the boorish mocking he was expecting about those beliefs.
Well now you're jumping to the conclusion that I would have mocked him had he explained himself. You'd be quite wrong, though I'm sure you love thinking of me as some anti-religion maniac.
quote:Funny you jumped right to a fear motive, though. Is that how we should interpret your motives whenever you don't respond to something?
No, doctor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well now you're jumping to the conclusion that I would have mocked him had he explained himself.
Nope. I don't know if you would have or not. I do know that the expectation of such posts around here is not an unrealistic one to hold.
quote:You'd be quite wrong, though I'm sure you love thinking of me as some anti-religion maniac.
Actually, I never think of you at all except when I'm responding to you, and "love" isn't a word I'd associate with it at all.
quote:No, doctor.
Then maybe you ought not to impute motives to others with no evidence.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I just can't respond without saying you're bullshitting again, so I'll avoid that, Dag.
I will answer this though:
quote: Then maybe you ought not to impute motives to others with no evidence
Then maybe you should just tell me what you think his motives are without me having to make assumptions for you to finally say it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I just can't respond without saying you're bullshitting again, so I'll avoid that, Dag.
Man, you are a little passive-aggressive pissant, aren't you? And apparantly one with quite an ego, although it's not quite clear which part you think is bullshitting.
quote:Then maybe you should just tell me what you think his motives are without me having to make assumptions for you to finally say it.
Because, unlike you, I don't go assigning motives to other posters. Edit: I will, however raise possible alternative motives when someone else decides to do it for them.
Dagonee
[ January 31, 2005, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: No, he probably just didn't feel up to dealing with the boorish mocking he was expecting about those beliefs.
::cough::
That's not alternative, you're saying what he probably thought there.
[ January 31, 2005, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh well, overlapping edit/post, so I'll say it again here:
I will, however raise possible alternative motives when someone else decides to do it for them.
Note the word "probably."
As opposed to asking subsequent questions that assume a particular answer to a previous one.
Dagonee
[ January 31, 2005, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Heh you were assinging motives more then I was.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I asked if you were saying something, and in the case that you were I was continuing with another question.
You answer with what you believe he was most likely thinking.
And I'm the one assigning motives?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, I said "might" in that post, not "most likely."
The post with "probably" was after your little fear digs and the mocking of his beliefs.
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I made digs because he was afraid of answering. You yourself have said he was.
Wether his fear was over getting annoying taunts or his fear was of having to defend his ideals is the question. I was asking if you were saying he was afraid to defend his ideals. (Though I'm sure you wouldn't of phrased it that way had you been saying it.)
You then made the assumption.
But really, who cares?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
After seeing the squabbling that happened without me explaining further, I'm now glad that I didn't.
One my my recent resolutions is to not participate in contentious discussions on hatrack. There are times where you can't answer all questions without it starting/continuing a fight.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But really, who cares?
Exactly. So what was the point of the original, rude post?
And no, I didn't say he was afraid. When I don't participate in a discussion because of how I think it will go, it's because it's bothersome, not because I'm afraid of it.
Dagonee
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
children, children shesh!
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Oh yes, the little boy connotations of "afraid".
a·fraid adj. 1. Filled with fear: afraid of ghosts; afraid to die; afraid for his life.
2. Having feelings of aversion or unwillingness in regard to something: not afraid of hard work; afraid to show emotion.
3. Filled with regret or concern. Used especially to soften an unpleasant statement: I'm afraid you're wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wll, under that definition, the answer to your original question:
quote:I think that says something about someones values when they are afraid to try and defend them, don't you?
is a big, fat, "No."
Dagonee
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Ok, this is where it's getting complicated and stupid since I used the word afraid twice in my post each with a different meaning. But it doesn't really matter.
Posted by kyrie (Member # 6415) on :
I repeat, Cildren! Children!
It is quite anoying when you divert a perfictly good thread about an intresting topic to MINDLESS BICKERING. Try creating a thread just for your squabbling, and leave ligitamet threads alone. You have long sence killed the original topic of debate. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I think women should be allowed to strut around in the nude all they want.
Not men, though.
And only HAWT women.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Well, this thread certainly died quickly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kyrie, that one was actually a productive exchange.
[ January 31, 2005, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
I got back from work, came to Hatrack to check out this thread, and was all excited when I saw that it had grown to two pages.
Then I opened it up.
But seriously, back to the debate, if you set aside the issue of making laws about nudity - in other words, if you assume that the government should be allowed to make such laws - do you think that having separate laws for men and woman are inherently unfair? If you assert that the "taboo" of nudity is nothing more than a cultural taboo, then shouldn't the fact that men walking around topless vs. women walking around topless would cause different reactions be taken into consideration? After all, according to this argument, the whole concept of nudity is defined by culture, so if the general culture considers topless woman to be partially nude, whereas it does not consider that true for men, shouldn't that affect the laws aboutnudity?
Is it legal in most states for women to walk around topless?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:if you assume that the government should be allowed to make such laws - do you think that having separate laws for men and woman are inherently unfair?
No, I don't.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I like the idea of women being allowed to legally be topless wherever men can be. I think that if we can innure men to the sight of the female breast, "de-sexualize" it so to speak, things will be easier for women all around. (But not for liquor companies, of course- how wil they make their money when women's breasts no longer sell things?)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Women have other body parts. They'll just promote those. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
The breast isn't the only body part that sells product. As Tom pointed out, we see images of legs, backs, necks... Men are more likely to be stimulated visually and advertisers will continue to promote goods with visuals that get our attention. Inuring the public to the display of breasts won't stem the tide of sexually based advertising.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
So, in order to be treated identically I have to wear a bra?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think all of the Hatrack ladies interested in striking a blow for equality should do their very best to innure me to the naked female breast. I'm certain that this will do something wonderful for the society we live in, or at least the society I live in, which is considerably smaller and has more imaginary bits.
G'head. Innure me.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:do you think that having separate laws for men and woman are inherently unfair? If you assert that the "taboo" of nudity is nothing more than a cultural taboo...
Along these lines, how does the goverment decide what is a cultural taboo, and thus irrelevant, and what isn't?
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I like the idea of women being allowed to legally be topless wherever men can be. I think that if we can innure men to the sight of the female breast, "de-sexualize" it so to speak, things will be easier for women all around.
I don't like that idea at all. I like them sexualized.
[ January 31, 2005, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
mph: *snort*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I heard many years ago that if a woman breast feeds, her breasts stop being erogonous zones.
I was very happy when I learned that was false. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Every day at Hatrack I learn something I didn't want to know.
>_<
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's usually my job to do that, rivka.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So you decided to share the joy, mph?
Um, thanks . . .
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: I think all of the Hatrack ladies interested in striking a blow for equality should do their very best to innure me to the naked female breast.
'Yes, I'm breastfeeding. Now, go away before I kill you.'
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hmm.
Lovely. And yay for mama!
But it's not working yet. Obviously this is a long term project...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
what a beautiful baby! And such a good picture of you, too. Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
dpr: Did you ever figure out what is wrong with your daughter?
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Allegra- we are currentl awaiting feacl occult results for parasites. we have done about $2000 of testing in the past month, with no real results besides "She's really, really lactose intolerant, don't even cook something with dairy" and the ped says he doesn't know any other tests to suggest.
My friend's fairy is that mortal food is hard on fey systems.
quote: 'Yes, I'm breastfeeding. Now, go away before I kill you.'
Well, I knew it would be a priceless shot and hubby was fooling around with different lenses- it was like, "TAKE THE PICTURE BEFORE HE'S DONE!!!".
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
$2000 worth of testing and that is all you know. That stinks. I hope you know more soon. Were they able to rule out some of the things brought up in the thread? ((((dpr&family))))
That really is an adorable picture of you and your baby.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Anyways:
I support complete desegregation! Which means you girls will have to figure out urinals.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Heh. No. You guys will have to figure out how to put the seat up--and down. THAT'S what that means.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
NEVER!
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I know...it's oh so difficult, you poor dears Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Gravity is on your side!
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote:$2000 worth of testing and that is all you know. That stinks. I hope you know more soon. Were they able to rule out some of the things brought up in the thread? ((((dpr&family))))
I know, it does suck (Thank God for insurance!!!). They ruled out Celiac's, her bllod levels of calcium are normal so I don't think we have to worry about William's Syndrome. But I wish we had a definitive answer, "This is what's wrong, and here's how we'll treat it".
(Oh, and thanks,I think Andrew is adorable in that photo too).
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote: Heh. No. You guys will have to figure out how to put the seat up--and down
And hit the bowl with 100% accuracy.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
O_O I forgot that part... that's KEY. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
What really confuses me is when women miss.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
The Mrs. always confuses me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think urine the same boat I am on that one, punwit.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
man some of the statements in this article make my brain hurt.
There are good reasons for modesty laws, Thomasson said -- "to protect the innocence of women and girls and to promote a decent society supportive of children and families." Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Yeah, Dag, Ur ethra person with good sanitary habits or ur a slob. It's funny how there seems to pee no middle ground.
[ February 04, 2005, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, how you do bladder on!
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
True, I guess I should a void posting any more frivolous nonsense. It's such a waste of energy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It does give new meaning to a stream of consciousness.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
So do I get PMS points now?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Posted by NewbTheTERRIBLErEVENge (Member # 5588) on :
Alright you fall down comedians:) I wrote and got published a letter to the editor of my state's big newspaper(that's not saying much) on this topic, shame I can't post it now. My ideas are like this, Yeah clothes have their place, to protect you or keep you warm. Beyond that, let's be logical here folks, if people want to wear clothes to look a certain way, there's nothing stopping them, otherwise face it it's nunya d***** buisness. If people want to make dress codes in private restaurants or homes or private work areas, that's their call, so long as they make them in direct accordance with sexual equality laws. Regardless of whether the law is changed, at this point in time and culture and history, if girls and women suddenly started going around in public topless I think you would in fact most probably see an increase in rapes. Intelligent people regardless of area or culture, will GENERALLY choose to go along with the cultural norms, so long as they do not inhibit, but in no ways does this make it constitutional for there to be laws restricting first ammendment rights.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If people want to make dress codes in private restaurants or homes or private work areas, that's their call, so long as they make them in direct accordance with sexual equality laws.
So you're saying that a private person has no right to implement different standards of modesty on their own property?
Why?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would dispute that any (edit: generally public) restaurant could be wholly considered one person's own property.
[ February 09, 2005, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which in and of itself is a major problem. If I own it (or hold a limited time estate in the form of a leasehold estate, which counts as ownership of an estate), then who else owns it?
[ February 09, 2005, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ownership is not merely a question of possession of deed. Indeed, even in the cases of our most private (land) property, it can be taken from us absent a crime under eminent domain. Eminent domain in some form is pretty much necessary, and reflects that the in some cases the interest of the state in one's property overrides one's own interest in that property.
We even have "property regulations" about what one can do on one's property absent eminent domain -- for instance, one cannot murder on it.
In the case of a highly public place such as a restaurant, the interest of the state is greater, and regulations based on that (limited) interest are justified.
I much prefer this framework as one to understand the law of the state on, as without something along these lines one is required to come up with completely different justifications to explain the difference between, say, laws against murder and laws against not providing handicapped access (or against providing racially biased access) to generally public buildings and establishments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then you think it's ok for the state to prevent a beachfront bar from allowing topless men but not topless women?
[ February 09, 2005, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ownership is a somewhat confused term in these cases. It can be wholly clear who possesses deed to a property. This does not resolve deeper issues of ownership in a public policy/political philosophy sense.
Some illustrations to consider:
On property I own (vis a vis deed), I do not possess the right to kill someone in cold blood.
On property I own (vis a vis deed), in many states the nature of self defense is expanded. That is, I have a greater right to kill someone on property of my own than on property of another's.
Explanation of this difference is significantly complicated by considerations of property that insist on private property being purely personal. It is considerably simplified by considerations of property which see both the individual and the state as having interests which are of varying degrees depending on the nature of the property.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
On the larger front, your concept of ownership is flawed. Onwership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on ones property. By your definition, any regulations that limit ones rights to use their land would consitute a taking requiring just compensation.
The police power is separate from the ownership right. The mistake you're making is in conflating all interests with ownership interests.
Dagonee
[ February 09, 2005, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm somewhat split on that issue; in the case of "beachfront", I think the state's interests (for many sound historical reasons) are considerably strengthened, but I'm not certain they're strengthened in respect to personal clothing.
Assuming the owner of the bar owned the property (not merely leasing it from the government), I think it likely he could set his own standards of toplessness between men and women; his interests in seeing a lack of disruption would override the state's interests in eliminating a minor difference in dress by gender in a private establishment. Note that I also think the bar owner could allow both to be topless, and that the state would not have the authority to ban that in this instance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Explanation of this difference is significantly complicated by considerations of property that insist on private property being purely personal. It is considerably simplified by considerations of property which see both the individual and the state as having interests which are of varying degrees depending on the nature of the property.
Actually, you complicate the nature of ownership when you confuse onwership interests with other interests. The power of emminent domain doesn't demonstrate a reduction in ownership rights - it is a transfer of ownership. If the interests weren't different, it would not be necessary.
Onwerhsip contains a certain bundle of rights: the right to exclude others, the right of entry and possession, the right to transfer via deed, will, or intestacy, and others. Emminent domain represents a full transfer of those rights. Regulation does not. Criminal jurisdiction does not.
If you conflate the power to enforce the criminal code with property ownership, you combine two very distinct and different things into an ill-fitting whole.
The true classification is a hierarchy:
Types of interests >>>> Public Interests >>>>>>>> Regulatory >>>>>>>> Criminal >>>> Private Interests >>>>>>>> Personal Freedom from Torts >>>>>>>> Contractual >>>>>>>> Ownership >>>>>>>>>>>> <various types of ownership>
So yes, the state regulatory interest is an interest that competes with ownership. But it's not an ownership interest. The problems you see by separating them only occur with a relatively unsophisticated view of property - one that has been current since the Domesday Book.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:On the larger front, your concept of ownership is flawed. Onwership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on ones property. By your definition, any regulations that limit ones rights to use their land would consitute a taking requiring just compensation.
The police power is separate from the ownership right. The mistake you're making is in conflating all interests with ownership interests.
Nope . In fact, you make an excellent point in my favor: ownership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on one's property. What I'm talking about is a way to explain that, otherwise one gets into a huge muddle with differing between what's something the government gets to forbid everywhere and what's something the government can only enforce in some places.
And no, by my definitions regulations that limit one's right to use land would not require compensation. Eminent domain is an application of the principal, not a definition of. Compensation is required because of the complete deprivation of, and because it is also in the state interest to try to be fair (and the inclusion of such a mandated fairness in the Constitution prevents some unfair abuses through eminent domain). Don't add words to my mouth, or as you like to put it, I didn't say that .
This isn't a legal definition of ownership I'm talking about, as I said, this is a public policy/political philosophy definition. Police power can be understood through this conception quite easily.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
No low riders in Virginia, Dagonee. you will have to hike up your pants now, sir.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'll wait until you respond to my last post to respond. I agree there's a continuity of interest. What you're missing is that ownership is a branch on that continuity, not an overarching concept.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Your hierarchy fits quite easily into what I'm talking about, Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No it doesn't fit into that hierarchy, because your thesis is that no "generally public restaurant could be wholly considered one person's own property."
To support this, you demonstrate that the state has the right to seize the land under eminent domain or place regulations upon it.
Neither argument makes sense. The right to eminent domain is the right to force a transfer of ownership. The right to regulate is a state police power. You've pretty much made my case by saying "ownership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on one's property."
Exactly. Ownership has never meant that. Therefore, pointing out examples where people can't "do anything one wants on one's property" has no bearing on whether they "truly own" the property.
It's like pointing out that prime numbers aren't prime because all but one of them are odd.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, no, private ownership is. We're really not disagreeing all that much, mainly we're just using the word ownership differently. I am using the word ownership the way I am for a few reasons:
1) The interests of the state and the interests of the individual in a piece of property are in many ways similar.
2) In philosophy, ownership is often considered as the degree to which something may be appropriated (note: not usually wholly) for own purposes. This fits exactly with how I am using the word.
3) I wish to operate against the use of the word ownership as a rallying point for "its mine so I can do what I want with it". One cannot do whatever one likes with something, even if one owns it. By coopting the word ownership I hope to work against that position.
4) Interest, the word somewhat in vogue for describing things, is an even more loaded word. "State interest" and "private interest" as competing notions is essentially the same, but I feel misses the essentials of the situation; those interests are a motivator for the ownership (in a philosophical sense) the state exercises. The interests of the individual in a piece of property allow him to exercise his ownership in various ways, such as by building a house. The interests of the state in that piece of property allow it to exercise its ______ in various ways, such as by requiring the house be built to certain specifications. I feel the word that best fits there is in many ways ownership, just as it describes the exercise of interests in the case of the private person.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, we keep posting past each other.
As I point out in my previous post, in many places other than legal circles ownership has meant exactly that. When people in academics talk about ownership of an idea, they're using my sense of the word. This sort of usage is all over many academic pursuits.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And now, off to class I go, with one last note:
Right now, there is no single word in common parlance to describe the exercise of interest. We have specific instances, such as the exercise of interests by regulation, but as far as a general word, no.
In a philosophical sense, the exercise of interests may be termed ownership; this word of course also has a legal sense, but many words are used in different senses.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, then you need to be more careful in your statements claiming one of my points for your own. If you truly mean "ownership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on one's property," then there's no way pointing out the lack of ability to do whatever one wants can help your case.
If you meant private ownership, then we can simply say that where Dagonee uses "ownership," fugu uses "private ownership." Then we can both be right. Edit: Or you can use "philosphizing ownership." But of course, you're being a tad slippery about that, since I clearly meant legal ownership when I made the claim you initially refuted.)
And my rallying point has never been "its mine so I can do what I want with it" but rather "it's mine, so the government needs to have a good reason for preventing me from doing what I want with it." What I'm working against is ownership not being treated as a right, to be weighed against other rights such the right to wear what you want.
Dagonee
[ February 09, 2005, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I would say public nudity would NOT increase the amount of rape, but actually lower it.
Here in the USA we are very closed about sexuality compared to other nations. When something isn't taboo, people will try things they normally wouldn't, and most would get it out of thier system. There are some people that get highs of being deviant; or just enjoy that kind of lifestyle.
As for public places of gathering: NO Shoes, NO Shirt, NO Service. (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
rotfl. Every time I see one of those signs I have the urge to remove my pants. So far it has been sucessfully quenched.
I suppose if I did remove my pants they could get me for public nudity even if I was wearing underwear?
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, in Virginia they could, if that law Liz posted passes. I bet it would depend on how much the underwear covered.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
From what I saw today on the news, the underwear itself was a problem.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
wedgie.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
that is too funny that you said that. I was thinking about wedgies, and how they would be illegal under this law. Not illegal to do, necessarily, but illegal to be a victime of a wedgie. A lose lose situation, for sure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If ever a defense attorney can truly say, "Your Honor, hasn't my client suffered enough?"
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Would he put that in his legal briefs?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For a trial like this, volume of evidence will require a box er two.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Who would have thought this was such a bra-d subject?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We could thing a thong about it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think that was a slip of your tongue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wonder if they will prosecute if your underwear shows due to negligee.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Well, they say this is a slight against African American youth. Those dang tighty whiteys!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) But I really am interested in general opinions on the subject. Even just a quick stop-by to let me know whether you agree or disagree that treating topless men and women differently is discrimination woudl be great. ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, I only go topless in my house!![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
shesh!
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)