case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2012-11-28 05:30 pm

[ SECRET POST #2157 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2157 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[2 Broke Girls]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Love Actually]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Me and My Dick]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Journey Into Mystery]


__________________________________________________



06.
[cracked.com]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Ryan Kwanten/L4D2]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Whispering Corridors, Memento Mori, The Wishing Stairs]


__________________________________________________



09.
[The Walking Dead (game)]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Kuragehime]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Thor]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Bartimaeus]


__________________________________________________



13.
[The Sentinel]


__________________________________________________



14.
[The Mentalist and The Addams Family]


__________________________________________________



15.
[Skyfall]


__________________________________________________



16.
[Generator Rex]


__________________________________________________



17.
[Partners]


__________________________________________________











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 036 secrets from Secret Submission Post #308.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-28 11:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, it being illegal to go topless is really very silly. It's a very silly thing to make illegal. So whether you'd be persecuted for doing it or not, we can certainly say that if you were persecuted, it would be very silly.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 12:15 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, because something being illegal when it isn't where you live is always totally silly, right? : /

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 12:44 am (UTC)(link)
I think anon meant that illegalizing someone's body parts from public places is plain ridiculous, because it sort of is

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 12:39 am (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry, but I would prefer to not see other women's boobs. There are nude beaches, nudist colonies, and their home for that. I don't want to have to see naked parts when I walk to the grocery store. So I'm happy with it being illegal here.

If you're comfortable with topless women and it's legal where you are that's great for you and the women who get to do it. It's their right and choice and that's awesome.

But just because where I'm from is not like where you're from does not make me backwards. We're just different people with different laws/cultures.
diet_poison: (Default)

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

[personal profile] diet_poison 2012-11-29 12:52 am (UTC)(link)
...the problem with that attitude is it means other people have to censor themselves just for your comfort.

You have a right to be put off by it but I mean, we don't censor people with facial features we don't like or horrible clothing choices...

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 12:57 am (UTC)(link)
In my community there are places they don't have to. Such as nude beaches and nude colonies. So I don't go there, obviously, and they can go there and be topless or full on naked.

Also, I feel public nudity is different from fashion. It's just cultural differences. There are places outside where I live where it is legal too so... there are a lot of options for them.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 02:27 am (UTC)(link)
I think the problem is that breasts are associated with "reproduction," and as such are perceived differently than, say, a facial deformity or a teal-and-pink windbreaker. Is it really "censoring" to cover up one's genitals in public? Would you be okay with men walking around without pants or underwear? (Honest question!)

For the record, I think it should be illegal for men to go shirtless outside of pools, beaches, etc. Most stores, restaurants, and other establishments in my area ban shirtless men from entering, anyway.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 05:07 am (UTC)(link)
Honestly, if we all suddenly went around naked everyone would eventually get used to it.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 05:45 am (UTC)(link)
native peoples living in tropical rainforests who haven't embraced "modernization" go around nude with no problems

I'm perfectly okay with all men walking around in their birthday suits if all women do it too

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 10:35 pm (UTC)(link)
The key word here is "tropical." They don't need clothing to protect themselves from the elements as people living in harsher climates do.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 11:06 pm (UTC)(link)
riiiiiight, so when men are allowed to bare their torso, women aren't allowed because they need protection from the elements? wow, women are sooooo delicate.
diet_poison: (Default)

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

[personal profile] diet_poison 2012-11-29 03:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Would you be okay with men walking around without pants or underwear?

No (to the underwear question), nor would I be okay with women doing the same thing. But I don't put breasts in that category. I also do not think they are associated in the mind with reproduction as much as they are with men's sexual desires.

How do you feel about public breastfeeding?

Also, why on Earth do you think men shouldn't be allowed to go shirtless? I'm not talking about restaurants and such - if it's a private establishment the owner can set the rules. I'm talking about just in public. Why? There's nothing there for them to cover up.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 03:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Men have nipples. Nipples and breasts are associated with reproduction and sex. Some men can lactate. It's not fair for women to cover up their nipples and breasts when men are allowed to flaunt them around.
diet_poison: (Default)

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

[personal profile] diet_poison 2012-11-29 05:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Funnily enough, though, most people don't think men's nipples are that big of a deal. We see them all the time. Men are allowed to bare them in a lot of situations when women aren't. And I think it's odd that your response to this would be "make them men cover them up!" I have never met a person who had a specific aversion to nipples.

They are associated with sex but that doesn't mean they're defined by sex. Nipples can be erogenous zones, but so can feet, necks, and lips (for example). They are not associated with reproduction but in fact aren't directly involved in the reproductive act - they are involved with nourishing children, which I think is nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide.

In fact reproduction itself is a central part of human existence and I don't think we should censor or hide reproduction. I can definitely get on board with not having one's genitals hanging out, but not specifically because of their reproductive connotation. Breasts and nipples are very different things from genitals, anyway.

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 10:39 pm (UTC)(link)
AYRT

Some people do put breasts in that category (and conflate "reproduction" with "sexual desires," too). For those people, exposed breasts aren't much more acceptable than bared genitals.

I personally think public breastfeeding should be banned.

And to be consistent, if women are banned from being shirtless, men should too, right?
diet_poison: (Default)

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

[personal profile] diet_poison 2012-11-29 11:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Some people do put breasts in that category (and conflate "reproduction" with "sexual desires," too)

I kinda think this is a problem though. I mean if everyone in your community is literally ok with that then it's one thing but the consequences of that end up being that people have to censor their own bodies for others' comfort.

Why ban public breastfeeding? What is it about nourishing an infant that is so offensive??? D: I mean I do find that kind of upsetting tbh

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 02:42 am (UTC)(link)
I would prefer not to see other people's feet. There are beaches, swimming pools, and their home for that. I don't want to have to see naked feet when I walk to the grocery store. Should bare and sandaled feet be made illegal in public?

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 05:45 am (UTC)(link)
A+
diet_poison: (Default)

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

[personal profile] diet_poison 2012-11-29 05:56 pm (UTC)(link)
+100

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 10:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes, they should!

Re: First Amendment Hypotheticals ft. My Bobble Meat

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 07:08 am (UTC)(link)
I would say that's fine, as long as you think that it should be illegal for men to topless too.

SA

(Anonymous) 2012-11-29 07:08 am (UTC)(link)
*to be