It reads like a script from a soap opera or, better yet, an old American television show called Three's Company (John Ritter, Joyce DeWitt, Suzanne Summers) or the old British series, Man of the House.
Rebecca lives with two roommates, one guy and one girl. It's been rather warm in the Second City and, although our three roommates have air conditioning in their apartment, they're good citizens and try to conserve energy. Rebecca wants to compensate by walking around the apartment with her top off. Her female roommate is fine with it. The guy, however, has a big problem with bare breasts bouncing around in the apartment.
In her blog post, So You Can Be Topless and I Can't?, Rebecca asks us what we think about all of this and there are a multitude of reply comments.
Miz-Know-It-All replied and certainly was not shy in her opinion as to "whether or not a proper young women should wander round the apartment with her breasts uncovered". She filed "spirited" comments and then followed up on her own blog in her Show us your, ahem, "Charms" post. In short, our girl, Miz, feels "that this is just not acceptable behavior and reminds us "that in fact women do have to follow a different standard than men".
So, we have a wide range of opinions among our TC readers. What do you think?
In her blog post, So You Can Be Topless and I Can't?, Rebecca asks us what we think about all of this and there are a multitude of reply comments.
Miz-Know-It-All replied and certainly was not shy in her opinion as to "whether or not a proper young women should wander round the apartment with her breasts uncovered". She filed "spirited" comments and then followed up on her own blog in her Show us your, ahem, "Charms" post. In short, our girl, Miz, feels "that this is just not acceptable behavior and reminds us "that in fact women do have to follow a different standard than men".So, we have a wide range of opinions among our TC readers. What do you think?
I commented on the blog when it was published over two weeks ago. All I have to say is that, given the tenor of the comments, this is a strange choice of blogs to feature.
ReplyDeleteTeagan, we've had a number of featured post in the queue. I don't see this as a "dated" post although some are and they end up falling off the map.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean I can't feature one of your two week old posts?
As for the content, it gives us a chance to feature two good blogs that many of our readers have not yet had a chance to check out.
Calie xx
No, I more meant that there was so much fighting, negativity, and nasty comments aimed at Miz in the first article. I guess I found it odd that a post with so many ad hominem attacks on a "member," if you will, of T-Central, was featured.
ReplyDeleteSure, feature one of my two week old posts. But if there's one where the comments degrade into a bunch of ad hominem attacks, please don't. :)
Personally, I do not go topless. It is worth considering that there are many parts of the world where the law is 'as long as they are not using nudity to disturb the peace, topless presentation is legal, for either sex'.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it reflects the 'liberality' of the part of the world I live in, that I say, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
I find myself reluctantly agree with Miz, who is dead-on on this issue.
ReplyDeleteAmerican society is a bit behind the times on this one, though. Halle's comment reflects a more common sense view, which is, unfortunately, not the American consensus. If you want to work on changing the American consensus, fine. Until then, you work with the rules of the society in which you live. That includes the country, state, city, or apartment thereof.
I am thinking that T-C is no longer interested in content.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to have devolved into a quest for popularity and "ratings", (hits), rather than knowledge or actual Factual Experience.
Also, I see a definate BIAS in what is considered or JUDGED to be "good".
ReplyDeleteFrom an open letter to the administrators of T-C.....
ReplyDelete" I admit that my method of delivery CAN BE somewhat accerbic but your CAVING to the self pitying, self important INDIVIDUALS who happen to DISAGREE with my personal POV is most disappointing. You are dealing with difficult issues here at T-Central and there are bound to be disagreements. BUT HIDING FROM THE TRUTH....even if it isn't THEE truth, but just what APPEARS to be the truth to OTHERS as the truth, OUTSIDE THE GHETTO, is to close your eyes, AND BY EXTENTION, the eyes and ears and MINDS of your readers.
I GET IT!!! Mine is NOT a popular message to the MAJORITY of your readers. NEVERTHELESS, that message IS VALID. It is VERY UNFAIR and quite frankly, extremely PRESUMPTIOUS of you and your fellow administrators to SO CENSOR A MINORITY OPINION.
Oh Pish Posh Teagan!
ReplyDeleteWhile I do appreciate the concern, this certainly ain't Miz Know-It-All's trip to the rodeo! So if that's the worst that's ever said about Miz Know-It-All, then I Swanee, she's gonna count it a pretty darn good day!
And for the record, Miz Know-It-All is far from a prude, in fact she has visited and swam at a topless beach with no shame... a little envy perhaps, but no shame, but Dear Ones? Miz Know-It-All still holds that there is a right time and place for everything and so you can bet your bottom dollar she is never going to appear on the Knights of Columbus float without at least a pair of coconuts held together with twine covering her more than ample... "charms!"
I read the featured post, and also the comments - well the first twenty or so, down to where Miz Know-It-All explained that insisting on going topless when the male room-mate said he felt uncomfortable was actually sexual harrassment.
ReplyDeleteThe female room-mate didn't want to go topless, and I don't think it was explained why (unless I could have found out by reading all 39 comments). But I bet that there were at least two considerations in her mind. First, that girls don't go topless - or bottomless come to that - without a good reason, such as wanting a proper suntan, or to make a political point about women's freedoms. Second, letting a man see you topless - or bottomless - is saying something sexual to him. It's generally done to provoke a reaction, either immediate or as a slow wind-up, but either way it anticipates some kind of pleasurable outcome. If no such reaction or pleasure is required, then you just wouldn't do this.
The male room-mate might have objected not because he hates seeing boobs, or is mortally afraid of the sight - surely not - but simply because he wanted a quiet evening without nagging distractions. He's conditioned to noticing exposed breasts and it was unsettling. It was too much when perhaps all he wanted was a cold beer.
As always, it must be remembered that if alone you can do exactly as you please, but in company you absolutely must consider the other people there. Your actions will have an effect. And it's not good to do things that aren't totally in accord with your companions' mood.
I've nothing to say for modesty and social custom and obeying 'the rules'. I think such things simply are ways in which people impose control on you and me, and if you possibly can, such restrictions should be flouted and rejected. But not at the expense of making even one nearby person feel genuinely unhappy.
Lucy
For some reason this reminds me of that spring break a few years ago where the t-girls had there implants bare on the beach and said "oh....we can have our tops off because we are men". Granted there are major differences in this story but it basically comes down to this:
ReplyDeleteJust because you are ok being naked does not mean that everyone around you has to be ok with you being naked. To me the girl is showing out plain and simple. Any respectable girl cis or trans should know better. You can't just walk around making people feel uncomfortable like you are entitled. I agree with everything Lucy has to say. Men are sex driven and unless they are gay (my favorite kind of man) you can't show them your tits unless you want him to be turned on or in this case uncomfy. I hate when people try to shove stuff down other people's throats.
When I grew up in the sixties the issue of bare chests first arose in Germany as a result of a criminal code provision which essentially said that "It is an offense to arouse a public disturbance". Bare chests were considered such if perpetrated by women. In the debate it turned out that most interpreted the words to mean :"disturbance of public arousal". It has always been the age old issue and even today in many cultures this is an absolute prohibition, such as Sharia law.
ReplyDeleteI for one have always found naked chests of men as disturbing as those of women, simply because out of context, that is not on the beach, your back yard if it is screened or otherwise an appropriate situation they tend impose your personal well being or sexual, political or attraction agenda on those that neither asked for it nor want to be the target of what the person exhibiting her/himself is trying to do. I think quite apart from all of the puritanical, sexually modest or oh my god arguments which in my view are all "disturbance of public arousal" approaches and there fore related to some personal issues of the recipient of these unwanted favors, it is simply a question of respect. It distracts from the business at hand.
Seriously?
ReplyDeleteThere has to be a "discussion" on this?
OMG!!