The problem with our "sexed up culture" is due, in large part to soap operas during daytime hours, where actors have sex in front of any children that happen to be in one of the living rooms where the program is on, and the advertisers that use sex to sell every product advertised, including skittles candy. It is done with the suggestion of sex, and use of sexual images in onslaughts of advertising we allow our children to be exposed to from the time they can focus visually on any TV screen, billboard, or any other medium. No nudity is required, the sexual innuendo is even more effective in most cases.

Why is the line you desire focused on female breasts? It sounds more than a bit misogynistic to me. You don't believe that women can be sexually aroused by a bare male chest and nipples? My nipples get erect when it is cold or if they are physically stimulated, exactly the same as female nipples. Shouldn't you be calling for ALL nipples to be covered, if it is indeed a sexual issue?

The mistake you make is equating nudity with sex. The two are very different. While sex is most often performed while nude, nudity is not required. Likewise, being nude, topless or completely, in public or in private, does not infer that sex will be taking place, or even being offered.

There is nothing wrong with being nude in the presence of children in a public setting, having sex in front of children is not natural. You are making a false equivalence. We are back to religious dogma.

As far as using "We", when discussing maturity, that pronoun may not be very accurate. I believe that most adults are mature enough to handle nudity, with the exceptions being the small minority. I have been to nudist camps, topless and nude beaches, and prefer to be nude any time weather permits. The sight of bare breasts or bodies alone does not cause sexual excitement, nor have I ever not been mature enough to handle myself in any of those situations.

If you do not believe that you are mature enough, then just use "I", instead of "we", because you are in the minority.

I never made any comment about feminists specifically, so I am not sure what you are responding to in the last paragraph of your reply. I do find your use of the word "whores" telling, however. Again with the religious dogma, "The Whore of Babylon".

If you are not interested in pursuing a relationship with a female that is comfortable enough with her own body to not have to cloak it in multiple layers of clothing, then that is your choice. I would be willing to bet that you have not met or talked to enough of theses "types" of women to make an informed decision. Even if you had, you have not listened to them.

It seems you would be much more of a nightmare for them to deal with, quite honestly. They are not seeking legally mandated nudity, but you are defending legally mandating that they cover parts of their body that you are uncomfortable with. Removing one legal inequality is not exactly "full on Utopic", even if "Utopic" was a real word.

There are some major cities (New York City for one), that have already removed the restrictions on breasts, and guess what? Not much happened. The immature fall over each other to get a pic of the boobs, but the majority of people just continue with their lives without giving much attention.

The indigenous peoples around the world have handled nudity much longer than the religious types have outlawed it. Makes one wonder which is the more advanced society, doesn't it?