Colorado town upholds no lady boobs law because lady boobs might cause car accidents


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Technically, boobs DO cause accidents, but maybe not the boobs you’re thinking of @frauenfelder, you dirty, dirty little man.


#3

A man with very large moobs and a woman should parade around town topless. Once she is cited/arrested - and he isn’t - we’ll be on our way to the Supreme Court! #SexyButEqual


#4

All you’re doing is making a strong case for the criminalization of man boobs.


#5

Would that be so bad? I’m not for a more prudish society, but equal standing under the law shouldn’t even have to be debated.

Also, I’d bet that the net change of ridding Fort Collins of moobs would be far greater than the effect of allowing women to go topless. My understanding is that there are quite a few places in the country where women have been given the right to go topless but that it isn’t taken advantage of with great frequency…


#6

I am more worried about the real health issue of them causing erections lasting longer than 4 hours.


#7
Others said men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, but they and their chests are inherently different and should be treated accordingly.

Because male breast cancer develops at an older age women are not allowed to go topless? Does not make sense.

Exceptions would be breastfeeding women, medical mergencies and places where nudity would be expected, such as locker aooms.

How generous! But at least the exceptions separate Ft. Collins from Saudi Arabia.


#8

“erode the family atmosphere” – ha ha! The town has 15 breweries. I don’t go there anymore because all of the 30-year-old bar hoppers running down main street who act like they’re still in college.


#9

Sounds like a place an equal rights group could have a good time at. Just walk around topless and get arrested. Then sue sue sue. Equal protection is kinda important.


#10

I’d like to look at this seriously for a moment and make an analogous argument.

A super nice car goes down the street. People see it, they stare, some gawk, does anyone actually get into an accident because a 56 convertible corvette cruised passed? Rarely if ever does that happen.

Now…a complete train wreck of a car accident comes along…people slow down, rubber neck…ITS A NIGHTMARE. So of course people stare, they can’t help themselves. What happens? MORE ACCIDENTS.

I think we can all agree…generally speaking: Lady boobs = pleasant viewing | Man boobs = train wreck.


#11

Here in nearby Boulder, CO toplessness is already legal, and though I’ve only seen it taken advantage of once, they were next to a road, and no accidents resulted. The very idea is ludicrous and an extremely thin, lazy veil for simple prudishness.


#12

That won’t cause an accident, and if it did, Bully! Accidents are going to happen anyway, so it may as well be a slow speed accident!


#13

If breasts are beautiful and natural, where’s the fun in that? I prefer the dirty kind, especially if they can actually cause auto accidents.


#14

I am all for freeing the Springfield two, but it probably would cause some accidents, not that that is a good reason to uphold the injustice.

I was a member of a community garden in L.A. and we had a bunch of USC students volunteer one day. We had a big mulch delivery that was dumped on the side of Sunset Blvd. and a whole bunch of stairs up which the mulch needed to be carried. So we had one person on top of the pile and another one the bottom filling up buckets for people to carry up the stairs. The kids would take turns on top of the pile because it was the easiest. Well one of the volunteers was a very attractive girl in a white tank. After the third rear end collision, I suggested that it would probably be better if she undertook a task away from traffic.


#15

Exactly - since when are breasts a safe thing to have around children? It’s all fun and games until someone puts their eye out.

My understanding of the fight is somewhat different though. It is not to be granted the equal rights, but rather recognition that our rights are equal in the first place


#16

I suppose that works if you believe in the existence of natural rights conferred by some deity or higher power or the universe itself. I personally see no compelling evidence for such natural rights. The brass tacks are that rights are things that may or may not be extended to people depending on the enlightenment of the society and/or whether those people and/or others fight for their equal rights. Basically I think you, quite innocently, stumbled into a false dichotomy. The rights don’t exist in the first place, but neither are they granted. They must be fought for. Just my take on it, and really the outcome is the same since, even if they existed, natural rights don’t do people any good if their merely notional.


#17

Of course far fewer object to dudes with washboard stomachs going topless. I imagine there is a demographic that only wants women with some idealized version of breasts to go topless as well. But beauty standards, while an interesting topic, are really rather a separate discussion.


#18

Not at all. Really, I consider the notion of rights being granted by other humans to be equally superstitious.

This depends upon to what extent we can say that such “rights” represent a purely social construct. The way I see it, such rights are merely social ways of describing agency which is integral to living things. As social structures, these take the form of categories applied to people, with arguments of what those categories should mean. But these categories are a fabrication of human values, which are overlayed upon people. Meanwhile, the people themselves can be said to embody many qualities and characteristics more or less objectively. The rights merely recognize that the categories are not fundamental differences. Deciding that a certain race or sex, for instance, has different abilities or worth is merely an ideological function which gets debugged. It’s like saying that “Women are able to go topless, but they shouldn’t be able to do so”. Well, they are able to! And there is no non-superstitious reason to declare that them doing so is any different than anybody else doing so. Basically, if anybody wants to artificially socially enable or disable a group of people, that is their own personal problem.

It’s a matter of perspective, I suppose. I think that people do need to fight oppression. But that oppression itself basically IS when other people think they can decide what others rights and responsibilities are.


#19

Yeah, women can legally be topless here. It happens like once every four years and noone cares.

It is the biggest prude non issue I know of. Wanna wear a shirt? Cool. Don’t wanna wear a shirt? (Psst, its gonna be 37F and drizzly today–skip the shirt and go for the fleece :D)


#20

I totally read that 37F as 37C and was all “why would you put on a fleece? are you a lizard?”