“Pocket”???
But don’t let facts get in the way of your righteous anger.
I guess you don’t quite understand how laws work in America. The cities are the ones that ban such things. It’s nice when federal law does not prohibit something, but unless it’s a violation of federal law, then states get to. If it doesn’t violate federal or state law, then counties get to. I’m sure you can figure out the rest.
Where I live, it’s nipples. A woman must keep her dirty nipples covered. Even a piece of tape will do, but we can’t let people catch a glimpse of our nasty woman-nipples. Man nipples are not a problem, of course.
Go back and read your own words. You claimed:
You were wrong.
When changes were pointed out to you, you then claimed there was only a “pocket” of decency. Proven wrong on that, you once again move the goalposts.
You want to walk around topless so bad? Move where it’s completely legal. Or do something to change the laws in your jurisdiction; there are plenty of precedent cases to cite and groups who will assist you.
Or, you can just bitch endlessly on a message board about how other people pain you. Yeah, that’s the* rational* choice, right?
Thanks, I just might. 
People like you are why it isn’t changing. There are occasional efforts to change it, but there simply isn’t sufficient public support or concern. Of course I still do hope it will change, but I’m not wasting my life tilting at windmills.
I can just picture you telling slaves to quit whining and just move north of the Mason-Dixon Line and gay people to relocate to states where they can marry. You are a true civil rights hero, saving people from making a big deal about nothing!
Because Biblical literalism isn’t followed by the majority of Christians, and it’s the same for most religions. The religious left, as far as I can tell, sees the Bible and similar works as inspired by God and written by humans. The “bad” parts are generally seen as relics of a long-gone time or perversions due to the weaknesses of the human authors. You’re defining proper Christianity as Pat Robertson and those to the right. They’re easy to argue against, because they are jerks. You’re dismissing those who don’t follow your preconceived notions of what religious people are as not really following their faith, which goes against the majority view of religious practices. I mean, Biblical literalism and fundamentalism tend to be fringier movements within a faith, and they’re pretty easy to argue against using their own holy writ. The major religions and their books are often self-contradictory or vague; there’s no “correct” way to follow them, because interpretations are legion. You may dislike them because of that, but you can’t say that only fundies are really Christian or Muslim or whatever. They’re not, by anyone’s measure but yours and the fundies’.
They’re not all equally valid. However, if you are judging them without actually understanding them and their context, then, even if you yourself aren’t racist, you are following in the proud tradition of scientific racists. And, as I said, the thing about understanding the practices and the culture is that it gives you a better chance of actually changing things you don’t like. This is why the UN and NGOs like to hire anthropologists. Trying to end FGM at gunpoint won’t work. At best, you may end that particular practice at the cost of innocent lives and any chance of ever gaining the trust and respect of the people in question, while practically forcing people to become as bullheaded as possible about retaining their cultural practices. And a culture that practices FGM isn’t going to treat women and girls wonderfully otherwise. Look at it from another angle: the US and Canada tried their damnedest to stamp out indigenous culture and language. They did a decent job, but Native Americans and their languages are still there, and it was the horrible things the governments did to them that encouraged the growth of indigenous rights movements and inspired younger people to study their culture. You push people, they push back.
AnaMen also addressed this one. And, fine, forget those examples. In fact, forget every example I could possibly give, because there is a rational reason to follow any cultural practice. “Because it’s what the culture says to do, and people will be upset if I don’t” is a rational reason for an individual, no matter how stupid the practice. What I was (clumsily, admittedly) trying to say is that, no, you don’t act rationally all the time. No one does. There is overwhelming evidence that, no matter how evidence-based people think their conclusions are and how much they swear up and down that their decisions were made rationally, they are simply wrong. The decisions may not be wrong, but the idea that it was based on rationality rather than some stew of instinct, personal preference, ingrained prejudices, and feeling is.
For instance, when orchestras hire people based on blind auditions (the instrumentalist plays behind a curtain, for example), they tend to hire a lot more women, especially for the “manlier” instruments. The hiring people did not think they were sexist; they had based non-blind audition hiring on what they thought sounded best, based on their professional experience. However, unconscious prejudices about what women are capable of still showed up. This has been shown across the board, in everyone.
And that’s how it works. Racism and sexism are easy examples, but it also works in other ways. If your language uses cardinal directions rather than things like “to the left”, you’re going to always know where east is. If your culture doesn’t eat dogs or insects, you’re going to think those foods are inherently disgusting or wrong. No matter how much you can rationalized what you do or don’t do after the fact, you do not make decisions based on pure reason. No one does, and to claim that you do is completely and utterly irrational.