|
| Thread: Topless Women & the 1st Amendment |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Halanna
Hired Hero
|
posted March 10, 2005 04:20 PM |
|
|
Topless Women & the 1st Amendment
Does anyone agree with this woman? Is it "unfair" for men to go topless in public and not women?
For those not in the USA, here is the First Amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Do you think her "protest" is a valid one? She's not talking about being topless on certain beaches or places where it is acceptable, she just means in public, period.
Personally, I think I would find that strange and maybe uncomfortable, am I just "behind the times"?
Woman To Protest Topless In Daytona Beach
POSTED: 6:46 am EST March 10, 2005
UPDATED: 8:57 am EST March 10, 2005
DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. -- A woman fighting the city of Daytona Beach over her right to protest topless plans to bare her breasts in public this weekend.
An attorney for Elizabeth Book and a city attorney signed an agreement last month allowing her to be topless at a rally on the last day of Bike Week. She must use a flatbed truck covered with a six-foot tarp to shield unwilling passers-by from seeing her and other topless female protesters.
"We consider it a tremendous victory for the First Amendment," said Larry Walters, Book's attorney.
The agreement prevents city police officers from citing or arresting the protesters provided they're shielded by the tarp.
Book, who is in her early 40s, has said it is unfair that only men are allowed to go topless in public places and that women are fined for flashing their breasts at events like Bike Week, the annual gathering of hundreds of thousands of motorcycle enthusiasts.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 04:31 PM |
|
|
I believe that women should be allowed to walk around topless. Especially young and attractive ones.
____________
|
|
Halanna
Hired Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 04:42 PM |
|
|
Yes, but you can't say that. She did an interview on the news this morning saying it was "discriminatory" for women to have to wear shirts but not men.
That was part of my original point and I should have included it in the post. Is it discriminatory?
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 04:48 PM |
|
|
Of course it isn't, my previous post was just a joke. Topless women make some people uncomfortable, and so it doesn't seem to be fair. Most religious men, for instance, would consider it a terrible sin to look upon a nude woman without being married to her.
But still, -I- wouldn't mind 
____________
|
|
EvilLoynis
Famous Hero
The Dark Shadow
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 05:07 PM |
|
|
I used to work for the city at a recreation center. In the swimming pool office they had a memo about something like this. It said, if I remember correctly, that if a women wanted to swim topless that the lifgaurds could ask her nicely not to but could not ask her to leave if she refused.
Also sometimes anti descrimination laws hurt more than help. I mean I know that all malls and restauraunts have signs on them that say something like No Shirt, No Shoes No Service.
____________
"I am both selfish and instictive. I value nature and the world around me as means to an end as well as an end in itself; at best I ... too long to display...
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 06:57 PM |
|
|
I did a paper on topless women. It's posted in this thread. Needless to say, it's an intellectual exercise written for a grade. But certain pieces may be relevant over here. Personally, I think it is silly and discriminatory that men can go topless and women can't.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 08:46 PM |
|
|
I must admit I am confused. The First Amendment pertains to speech, actions converying a message. What's the message here?
Now discrimination on the other hand may apply, since we have a different set of social rules applied to men and women. However, the decency laws generally classify "indecent exposure" as exposure of sexual organs. The fact that women's breasts serve as sexual organs where men's do not may be a biological distinction giving rise to the argument that classifying them as subjects of indecent exposure is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest," which is all you really need to overcome many claims of Constitutional violation.
I'm not sure what the standard for reviewing that distinction would be for a claim of discrimination though, since discrimination is not derived from the Constitution, but from federal and state statutes.
(Which returns me to the thought that the attorney who claimed this to be a great victory for the First Amendment did not know what he was talking about.)
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 09:18 PM |
|
|
Well I think the issue is she wants men and women to be equal. And with the whole US issue with sexuality in general, a good way to get attention is to do something with boobs.. I think.
But its totally crazy and she seems kinda stupid to do that kinda thing.. kinda bad for her cause really.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted March 10, 2005 10:44 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 10 Mar 2005
|
*cough*
I wouldn't touch this topic with a ten-foot pole.
Edit: vote here
 T&A
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted March 10, 2005 11:38 PM |
|
|
Awwww, c'mon Consis you know you really want to 
*hands Consis a ten foot pole*
Go ahead, give it a little poke, we want to hear 
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 11, 2005 03:14 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 10 Mar 2005
|
Quote:
I believe that women should be allowed to walk around topless. Especially young and attractive ones.
Better yet, make it mandatory.
I think Khaelo's link pretty much summarizes the ethical debate. my personal opinion is that she has every right to do it. (edit: not khaelo. lol) (edit2: i mean khaelo too as a woman has that right )
Peacemaker, i dont think melons are sexual organs, are they? although they do play an important role in foreplay, play and afterplay sex.
edit: i dont think it has anything to do with the constitution, from what u quoted of it. Which part do u think addresses naked boobs?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 11, 2005 03:21 AM |
|
|
Khaelo:
Quote:
Personally, I think it is silly and discriminatory that men can go topless and women can't.
Peacemaker:
Quote:
I must admit I am confused. The First Amendment pertains to speech, actions converying a message. What's the message here?
Can anyone say "O-P-I-U-M"?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Halanna
Hired Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2005 05:17 PM |
|
|
Nice paper, Khaelo! Obviously I missed that in the other thread.
____________
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted March 12, 2005 04:37 AM |
|
|
Daytona beach hmmmmmmmmm.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted March 12, 2005 11:06 AM |
|
|
I think personal freedom ends where it starts limiting other people's freedom. In many African countries as well as in rural medieval Europe for instance this would never be/have been an issue. Breasts are/were common sight in the streets there, as mothers were feeding their babies for example. Breasts may not be sexual organs as PM calls them but she does have a point. Breasts play an important role in sexuality in most parts of the world.
Say next week women would come to work topless then I'm quite sure I wouldn't be able to work as concentrated as I normally can. Oh wait, there hardly are any women at the office where I work anyway - darn
What I'm trying to say is that in the context we live in, in the west, women walking around topless would limit the freedom of men at least to an extent. As it is, it's already hard enough for us to think for a few moments in between the time we're thinking about sex  If there'd be a general culture of bare breasts, this would not be an issue because breasts would play a (perhaps more natural) less prominant role in sexuality. On the other hand to be able to take something off one must be wearing something, no? Is having to wear a top such a great limit to the freedom of women?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 12, 2005 05:57 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
Hello Niddy!!! LONG TIME!!!! So nice to see you.
Actually, what I should have said was that American culture considers breasts as sexual organs, hence the taboo on bearing them. The answer to this question depends on which definition of "sexual organ" one is referring to, and what the context is.
Biological Context
If one does a google search on this topic one will find that although there are exceptions, generally, the scientific biological websites tend to agree that the term "sexual organs" does not include breasts in the biological sense of the term, since thay are not inherently sexual organs. And it is also true that since human women can and do feed their offspring without the use of their breasts. the breasts are not essential to the child-bearing process resulting from sex.
Chemical Context
On the other hand, several other of these sites (the ones focused more on chemistry) count breasts as well as skin and even the brain as sexual organs, because they play a role as significant as genitalia in the hormonal release process which makes sexual arousal and activity possible.
Socio-Cultural Context
However, there are also a large number of websites which speak to the issue of cultural relativism concerning breasts, and the apparently arbitrary occasional sexual/social taboos against their exposure, with the United States at the top of the taboo list. One can say that technically, breasts may not be sexual organs, but culturally, just tell any American man breasts are not a highly integral point of interest in their sexual attraction to a woman, and most men will laugh you off the stage.
So to expand on your argument, Niddy, the intensely sexual cultural role that breasts play here pretty much makes them sexual organs for socio-cultural purposes. Thus the distraction level, or the effect, that bearing them would have on men might be very similar to the effect that men walking around with their sexual organs exposed would have on women. (I know you're not American but your argument surely applies in this culture as well as yours, perhaps more).
The Mystification of the Boob
Ironically, some of these same sites suggest that the reason this taboo exists is the mystification of the boob. This mystification only exists because nearly the entire populace is prevented from seeing breasts in their natural, non-sexual role, (such as simply bearing them in a nonsexual setting socially or breastfeeding). So the taboo is self-perpetuating. For example:
Quote:
The breast taboo in many English-speaking countries today makes people be embarrassed of the real function of breasts: breastfeeding. People don't think anything about seeing animals nurse their young; why would it be different when human mothers breastfeed? If everyone -men and women alike- was used to going without their top, like some primitive tribes did and like some Africans still do, no one would consider bare breasts as anything special. Men and women DON'T HAVE to be obsessed by breasts... seeing bare breasts in NON-sexual circumstances and atmosphere, like breastfeeding or normal everyday women on topless or nude beaches, can eventually de-sensitize (the populace)...
-- Taken from the "Female Intelligence Agency" website
So while breasts may currently be considered "sexual organs," this is apparently because of cultural mystification and taboo, not vice versa. Some (likely including Khaelo and probably me too) would argue that this phenomenon is part and parcel of the repressive objectification of women in American society and media. Consider the following quote from Consumer Health Digest --
Quote:
Breasts - babyfeeders or sexual objects?
Breasts in North America are a taboo: going topless on beaches is not generally accepted, breastfeeding in public is often frowned on or seen as 'indecent exposure', women going topfree is considered shameful and immodest behavior.
On the other hand, entertainment industry and the media constantly show women wearing very scant clothing that barely covers the nipples and just draws more attention to the breasts. Fashion swimwear covers less and less of the female body each year. Media and advertisements signal to people that breasts are sexual, and only beautiful when big and protruding...
-- and this one from the article in the Boston Globe titled "Hands off Clitoridectomy:"
Quote:
As we know -- from Masters and Johnson to the Hite report -- ... that many features of our society turn women against their own bodies and encourage them to suppress their sexuality. The high frequency of rapes or attempted rapes, childhood sexual abuse, the battering of women, and exposure to pornography limits women's sexual expression and enjoyment. Bodily self-hatred, encouraged by the introduction of unrealizable standards of beauty -- teenage models, Barbie dolls, or even children's fairy-tales -- fosters frustration and feelings of inadequacy.
From Cinderella to Lady D., from Playboy to children's cartoons, the ideal woman is portrayed as a thin, delicate creature with large breasts, a narrow waist, and a limited intellect. Those who do not measure up may spend a lifetime of "self-improvement" and encounter permanent feelings of failure and disgust. Feminists have argued that these phenomena have devastating effects on the ability of women to enjoy sex, and yet very little is done in our society to change the nature of this oppressive reality.
-- And finally, from TOPFREEDOM: A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DEBATE WITH A BUST, by Robin Jensen:
Quote:
topfreedom proponents argue that current nudity laws go too far when prohibiting the exposure of female breasts. Breasts are treated like a commodity, they say, and, as a result, women do not have control over their own breasts ("Topfree Equal Rights Association," 2003). In the spirit of Marxist feminism, or what Donovan (1992) labels socialist feminism and describes as the belief that women are oppressed by the combination of modern economic concerns and patriarchy, they identify a hypocrisy in the regulation of female breasts when topless bars, the pornography industry, and the world of advertising profit from the breast's exploitation...
Some argue that requiring women to cover their breasts in situations where men are not required to do so teaches women that their bodies are unacceptable and objects of which they should be ashamed. This effect is only exacerbated when the breasts that are highlighted in the media belong primarily to young, extremely toned models.
Here's an interesting and highly relevant treatise I stumbled upon:
http://www.tera.ca/articles.html#Analysis
In sum, then, it is apparent the most recent school of thought on this issue identifies breast modesty --once considered "common female decency" -- to be a significant aspect, if not at the root, of the centuries-long subjugation of women as second-class citizens. That being the case, the recent movement is not a radical departure as much as a natural outgrowth of the Equal Rights Movement and resulting social studies surrounding that movement.
This post has gotten way too long. There's much to discuss here but for now I will step aside and let somebody else have a turn.
|
|
Korejora
Promising
|
|
posted March 12, 2005 08:54 PM |
|
|
Actually, in my province.. or maybe just county (read: not synonymous to country), not sure which... There was a lawsuit about women going into public topless, and now it's legal. I don't think anyone does it around here, though, even if they can.
____________
That's the best part. 
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted March 12, 2005 09:16 PM |
|
|
Hmm, when I read Korejora's post, I whipped out my copy of "Norwegian Laws", just to see if anything is mentioned in the law about crime.
And I found that if it can be proven that someone "by words or actions displays sexually offensive or other indecent behaviour
a) in public places
b) in the presence of or towards anyone who hasn't agreed to it, or
c) in the presence of or towards children under the age of 16
are penalized with fines or with prison up to 1 year."
Now, it's been some time since I had any law, and I cannot be sure if this is the paragraph used by the high court, or if females showing their breasts fall under this paragraph, but it was the closest I could find.
But if this is the one, then "flashers" can be imprisoned just as long as rapists...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2005 09:37 PM |
|
|
I say let 'em run free and bare breasted, just don't
complain when all those perverts start drooling .
I think a real problem is all those old men with sagging
breasts. They should cover up, its pathetic trying to
mimic woman at their age.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted March 13, 2005 04:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What I'm trying to say is that in the context we live in, in the west, women walking around topless would limit the freedom of men at least to an extent.
By distracting them from their mental activities, right? Limitation of the thought, hmm, thats a new one. Can I complain about Marry wearing a mini-skirt also, because it distracts me from my daily activities? Can I demand that she covers herself because her sexy appeal turns me on while I'm working?
Freedom? How is it limited? No one's freedom is threatened if women are allowed to go topless. If nothing else, at least thinking is always free.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
