Interesting and well thought out article but the linkages with Victorian toilets and airconditioning deminishes your argument.

The airconditioning logic is a real red herring - Australia has summers with 40 C plus days - the issue is the traditional (and stupid) dress codes not a gender issue. Women are "allowed" to dress according to the weather (and sensibly wear cooler items when it is hot) whilst men are "expected" to wear the British suit, tie and business shirt whether is it O degrees or 40 degrees. Prehaps it is men who are discriminated against here rather than women?

Hang on Tony. Don't tell me that most men would not be looking out of the corners (or the front) of their eyes at topless women on the beach. And the topless women should not be surprised by that, in fact must expect it.

Would it be any different if the men were using Box Brownie cameras rather than a mobile phone? Is it just the new technology that you object to? Peeping toms have been around for probably hundreds of thousands of years - they are not a new phenomenon.

And what is the connection between looking at topless women and tiny tots. Are you saying that a man ogling a topless woman on the beach is automatically a paedophile? Your logic is somewhat convoluted, to say the least.

There is no right to feel comfortable. Absurd premise. Too variable. Would have to formulate 6.5 billion versions of a bill of rights to cover variant emotional sensibilities.

There is no right to privacy in a public place. Unfortunate l agree. However its a simple contradiction.

The unique 'logical' behind this piece could prolly justify parents (er mothers) spying on their kids with GPS and classroom cameras at the same time decrying men who take pics of nakedness at the beach.

Dont think l have seen an Online Opinion article with so many logical fallacies, intellectual dishonesties, specious claims, gender driven double standards, ideologically infused 'logic' and generalised absurdity masquerading as insight.

Considering the low word count and the tedium of the excercise, will leave it there.

ps. where can l go to put my brain so thoroughly thru a wash a rinse cycle? Ah yes, articles like this one.

pps. the standard of articles is slipping badly in this place. Yes, yes, dont change the subject by emploring me to contribute my own version of same (lm not that disciplined), but please do exercise some editorial rigour. Simple adherence to the tenets of logic and reason would be a good filter.

I think trade215 has just about covered it. Since when do we have privacy in a public space? Security cameras are everywhere, videos scan hundreds of people in a few seconds. On the whole most people are not interested in taking pictures of strangers; unless perhaps those strangers are topless! Using the example of topless women to support this argument is rather weak. Whilst taking photos of unknown topless women is inappropriate; others on the beach may have felt their public space more under threat by the view of these topless women.
Tony Smith claims "The test for us is to accept them and to avoid causing them embarrassment". Tony - why are only the rights of these topless women considered? How about any embarrassment they cause? Topless women are always going to attract male attention. Parents don't let their children watch R rated movies so why take them to an R rated beach and risk exposure to undesireable elements (if they are in fact undesireable).

Respect yourself and others will respect you. If women have no respect for their own privacy why should they expect it from others. The only need I can see there is to be topless on a public beach is the need for attention. Using that as an example of public space being under threat is really grasping at straws.

A further sign of civilisation is that women can, without fear, use the beach for swimming or sunbathing “topless” if they wish.

However, a few men seem determined to show these women that they have no rights in this public space

COMMENT:
Civlisation ? or the lack of it ! If a girl is happy for all the beach goers to see her naked top, why should she worry if half the world does also ? via a mobile snap and the internet ?
What utttter hypocrisy!

"Like the Breast feeding mother" ?

like heck it is ! A mum with a baby shows the beautiful functionality of breasts in context. OUT of that context they are very much for titilation and the stimulation of male hormonal activity, and any man who denies he is sweetly turned on by a well shaped naked breast had better have some flying pigs on standby !

Naked breasts are exactly what the media portrays them to be.. STIMULATING. I say those men who photograph such women are just the 'reaping' aspect of what the females themselves 'sowed'.
Neither is 'right' and the photo is not worse than the flaunting.
"you flaunt, we taunt" perhaps is how he thinks ?

The only thing a topless (and non suckling) female can 'TRUST' is that men will enjoy the sight of her boobs, and feel a rather strong urge to KEEP looking.

When I (rarely) waltz up to Safeways in my Lycra bike shorts, which are rather form fitting and revealing of my manhood, even girls I know as 'daughter' figures are tempted to LOOK down below when they think I'm not seeing ! Our sexuality is REAL and is related to certain parts of our bodies. Modesty is a far better option.

RIGHTS ?
When men 'flash' themselves women are outraged.
Males have 'rights' not to be flashed by bouncing boobs too. Especially if they were there first.

Don't expect privacy in a public space.

simple as that.

Boaz - you are indeed a blind product of our western culture. Breasts in many other cultures are not seen as titillation for the exclusive enjoyment of men. And equating penises with breasts is just absurd. Suggest Anatomy 101.

As for public spaces - they have never been private. While I have no doubt that I have been oggled many a time on a beach, the only time it was a problem was when some male decided my simple presence on a beach was sufficient invitation for him to try and chat me up. Again male sexual response is male responsibility. Perhaps Boaz would like all women to don burkas at the beach - unless we're breast feeding of course.

Coraliz - agree with your points regards surveillence. However I do have a problem with people who are offended by the sight of breasts - they are not remotely aggressive, whereas a man waggling his penis in public is threatening - possibility he may rape.

What was the point of this thread anyway?

We have never developed ettiquette rules for the use of mobile phones. One consequence of that is that many believe that *nothing* is inappropriate when using them.

That said, there have been moves to legislate to create criminal offences for the kind of use you describe.

Curiously, though we have *never* had a right to privacy, let alone privacy in public, many people *feel* that such a right exists. Much righteous indignation follows. Indignation that has no legal basis, but is widely considered to be morally sound. While we do not live in the USA, with so much of US culture on display in our public media, it is easy to understand how so many come to mistake their cultural norms for ours.

Unless and until we return to respecting each other in our public actitivies, we're going to continue down the path of increasingly invasive laws. Laws imposed upon us by politicians - who have shown plenty of eagerness to regulate - largely for their own political purposes.

We get what we accept. At the moment, we accept too much.

Scout here I go off topic even further.
I suspect that you are doing some of what BD is doing when you equate nude males to rapists (assuming we are still talking about beaches and not state schools).

It really does not take that long to get a pair of swimmers off so I don't get the tie between someone getting ready for a skinny dip and rape. I've not seen any research on the topic but I suspect that a significant proportion of men will when they get a quiet place to have a swim with no one around to get offended go for the skinny dip. It is a pleasant way to swim if there are not to many bities in the water and it can be somewhat liberating.

In most cases the law does not allow that freedom in public places. Maybe the law is saving a lot of guys from skin cancer in places where we really don't want it and keeping that "size does matter" topic away from the public eye.

Few of us are free to do entirely as we wish in public places, we are constrained socially and legally to respect some of the sensibilities of others around us.

Cheers
R0bert

R0bert

Suggest you reread BD's post - he was suggesting that women should not be upset at men 'flashing' themselves - completely different context to that of a 'nude' beach.

There is only one reason why a male would choose to 'flash' and believe me it is very threatening indeed!

As for nude - no problem in appropriate context.

I query why you made your comment at all. How would you feel if a male 'flashed' at your daughter? Do you think this type of behaviour is acceptable?

Are you just trying to bait me? I would've thought you could tell the difference between nudity and unwanted sexual behaviour.

Very disappointed with your post R0bert - expected better of you.

Scout, I clearly didn't read the same context into "flashed" as you did hence the different viewpoint. I read it in terms of BD's general objection to topless women (other than breast feeding ones)on the beach and his suggestion of double standards about exposure. I read BD's "flashed" as visible rather than a quick open of the raincoat.

I recall reading of an incident on a Queensland beach some years ago where male nude sunbathers were arrested while female nude sunbathers were left alone reportedly because the offending bits are more visible on males. I have read elsewhere that the relevant legislation in Qld only applies to males but can't confirm this.

Sorry that I misunderstood your meaning and intent. I have no intention of trying to bait you, you are one of my favourite posters on this site and someone who's contributions I value greatly.

To me the equation between male nudity and rapists (in the beach context) sounds kind of like the logic of those who suggest that women who dress "immodestly" are asking for rape and some similarity to the extremist parts of feminism that push the "all men are rapists" stuff. That surprised me coming from you and I'm sorry I got it wrong. So easy to misunderstand someone elses context.

Definite reason for serious concern about guys exposing themselves to target individuals just as a woman "flashing" her breasts at a group of school boys is a different issue to a woman sunbathing topless at the beach.

I'm out of this thread now till tomorrow.

Have a great day.
R0bert

R0bert

A big heart felt thanks.

I agree with you re: double standards in nudity - OK for women but not for men - completely absurd. However I'm not convinced that that is what BD meant - he has very primitive ideas about women.

Anyway, speaking of views (kind of), today in Melbourne is absolutely beautiful. My computer is underneath a window and I have been watching rosellas and rainbow lorikeets in the fronds of my treeferns - magic.

Dianne