Woman should be allowed to be topless in public.

I always pegged L as a centrist rather than a conservative. Pity. Oh well, Back to reality. Okay, So we're agreed on fair treatment. Lets walk that common ground. For starters. I'm sure you and I could agree that woman deserve specific rights related to child birth and other medical issues that men don't face. Other than that, There is no area that we need to treat woman differently in. Let me remind you that most states have toplessness with woman legalized. The stigma is the real problem here. People should not be shamed for exercising their civil rights. I find the topic to be amoral with respect to the act of toplessness. The only moral issue is the horrific treatment that women receive when trying to exercise their right and the blatant victim shaming that ensues. That's why I think it's actually a practical question. Practically speaking, There is no reason to have this restriction. I'm afraid you actually had it right the first time. It's a double standard. It's something that doesn't apply equally for two genders that are suppose to get fair treatment. There is no real medical issue to justify this double standard. Male nipples are not that different from female. Men simply have underdeveloped breasts. That's it. Fun fact. A penis is just a vagina flipped inside out. The Y chromosome flips it backwards and the tube becomes the penis and the ovaries become the testicles. When you look at the raw science of it. There is not as much difference in us beyond basic genital functions. You've already said yourself that you generally don't like double standards. I propose that if you don't have a better reason than lactation to support this double standard, Then you are logically obligated to change your mind about it. I promise you that it's not a slippery slope. A slippery slope is when you claim that a certain action will lead to a huge chain of events that cannot be predicted. My example was a simple A to B cause and effect based off real world examples with two hypothetical outcomes. Your assessment that both the victim and the offender should both be in trouble. First of all. The victim is a victim. Generally speaking, Punishing victims is bad practice, Don't you agree? Second. The victim is not committing a crime. Like I said, It is only outlawed in 4 states. I detest the fact that you would actually say that the victim was asking for it. That's just ridiculous. I hope you weren't being serious when you said this, Cause otherwise, You just shot yourself in both feet. The ONLY solution is to arrest the harassers. This is not just my opinion. I have the U. S. Government and decades of moral philosophy on my side. I'm a little bummed out now. I was expecting a slightly better argument than this. You basically just made an appeal to tradition, An appeal to physiology which was a non sequitur, And an appeal to sexism. You can claim to not be sexist all you want. But when you think like this. I am intellectually and morally obligated to call you as you present yourself and your present yourself as a sexist. Beyond simply winning this debate, I would suggest that you reflect a little more closely on your views and try to see the inconsistencies. I would hope that you could learn what equality is all about, Because your characterization of woman would put us halfway back to biblical times when woman were literally property. Well what about biblical rape you ask? Can't rape property. You ever get arrested for raping a chair? Do you see the absurdity of this line of thinking? Your floor. I'm not gonna tell what arguments to make. But if you could lay off the sexism, My eyeballs would thank you.