Why aren't women outraged?

[Agde]

I don't understand why women are not totally upset. While other legally taboo body exposure areas (eg. genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks) apply equally to both genders, state and local laws systematically add as inappropriate the exposure of the "nipple and areola of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola at its highest point" -- in other words only the "lower portion" of breasts and only female breasts.

Anybody is free to wear a shirt, swimsuit top or whatever -- what completely baffles me is that women would allow a bunch of mainly old men legislators to get away with writing rules that only apply to women. Isn't it clearly misogynist? Do legislators think that seeing "the lower portion of the female breast" will suddenly cause somebody to become more offended, more disorderly, or more uncontrollably sexual than seeing the top portion? Wouldn't it be better to write a law making it illegal for anyone, of either gender but perhaps particularly male legislators, to hassle anybody, of either gender, about their breasts?

Where is the outrage over targeting women with a dress code that doesn't apply equally to men?

[roaddog]

I agree whole heartedly, this sort of discrimination should be stopped immediately.
Cheers
Mick

[puffledud]

state and local laws systematically add as inappropriate the exposure of the "nipple and areola of the female breast below a horizontal line across the top of the areola at its highest point" -- in other words only the "lower portion" of breasts and only female breasts.

While I'm no lawyer, nor do I claim to play one on TV, if you read closely the discussion only concerns the female nipple and areola. From what I read there is no mention of the lower portion of the female breast. And so the breast below the areola may be visible and need not be covered.

Hopefully, at time goes on body acceptance (in it's truest sense) will be come the norm.

[NakedGary]

puffledud

This quote is typical and right out of the code books of a typical California City. This being the State Capitol of California:

9.04.060 Nudity.
It is unlawful for any person to appear, bathe, sunbathe, walk or be in any public park, playground, or beach, or the waters adjacent thereto, located within the city, in such a manner that the genitals, vulva, pubis, pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anus, anal region, or pubic hair region of any person, or any portion of the breast at or below the upper edge of the areola thereof on any female person, is exposed to public view or is not covered by an opaque covering.
A. This section shall not apply to children under the age of ten (10) years.
B. This section shall not apply to live theatrical performances performed in a theater, concert hall, or other similar establishment located on public land.

So "puffledud" from what you hear or read might be a lot different than the actual ordinance or code.

If you’re female, do not go topless, or expose the lower portion of your breasts in the State Capitol of California.
.

[Agde]

My question was really to the women here: "Why do you accept the current discrimination and unequal treatment under the law?"

If the tables were turned, I suspect men (and their teams of ACLU lawyers) would be very quick to protest men being required to wear tops in situations where women didn't have to.

[WNYjoe17]

The reason they pass laws like that is because the people want them.
Lets face it. We, as nudists are in a minority. The key is that we need to get people's views more accustomed to accepting it, then start to get the existing laws off the books. And part of that means watching for new laws, such as how NAC does. But the process of general acceptance is a slow one.

Joe

[puffledud]

Gary,

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I don't presume to understand the legal language, but I do understand that the same thing can be interpreted differently. Given the variety of swimsuit styles for women it would appear (no pun intended) that many women can still be in violation of this kind of law even when wearing some types of bikini.

[Boreas]

it is always interesting to see men discussing women's issues.

I would guess that the reason women are not outraged is because it is not important to most women. Women have been socialized to be "modest" and that means covering their breasts. If you feel this way, you will see no need to go topfree and therefore, will not be outraged by such a law. In fact, many women consider it disgusting for other women to be topfree.

That is not necessarily a view I hold. I live in a province where it is perfectly legal for women to be topfree where ever it is appropriate for men. I have no desire to be the only topfree woman in the crowd for a variety of reasons.

[Nudony]

it is always interesting to see men discussing women's issues.

That's because so few women are active contributors to the forum; so the guys feel compelled to respond so that someone will.

I feel our culture is responsible for women's passive acceptance of these sexist laws. If we look at French history, it was a few brave women who fought the law in the 60's, and won. And now all French women can enjoy toplessness at the beach if they so choose.

According to my wife, it is a myth that the majority of women are outraged by the sight of nude breasts; on the contrary, it is her experience that many, if not most younger women would embrace topfreedom if it was not only legal, but also widely practiced. But I think American women, due to societal pressures, are simply not willing to fight that battle.

[RalphVa]

Sounds like something the ACLU should protest. This might be worthwhile, compared to so many other things they get involved with.

Maybe they should attack the fuzzing of the nipples on TV, too.

[Bob S.]

Back in the 60s, it was the burning of the bra. I and a female friend actually tried to contact NOW a few years ago regarding their stance on toplessness and never got a response.

Bob S.

[John P]

On the contrary, women have vastly more freedom in clothing than men have. I could fill the computer screen with the names of garments that our society considers appropriate for women but not for men, and in particular, under just about any social circumstances women are likely to be wearing less clothing than men. Think of a wedding on a hot summer day--the women all in light dresses and sandals, the men in heavy suits and solid leather shoes. If I were going to make an issue of equality in clothing, I'd start with my own problems rather than oh-so-generously attempt to hand women some additional freedom.

And even if a young man and woman go to the beach together, who wears more clothing? The one in knee-length shorts or the one in a bikini? If the woman gets to take her top off, can I wear a swimsuit like hers in the name of "equality"?

Regarding women's lack of interest in the topfreedom issue, maybe they're aware that men are the ones who grew up looking at Playboy centerfolds (or nowadays more exciting stuff on the internet). They might just possibly think that a man who's in favor of topfreedom would like to see the same things Miss February had to show, in real life. Women might say "Of course men are in favor of topfree equality--look at men's behavior all the rest of the time!"

[Zevei]

Originally posted by WNYjoe17:
The reason they pass laws like that is because the people want them.
Lets face it. We, as nudists are in a minority. The key is that we need to get people's views more accustomed to accepting it, then start to get the existing laws off the books. And part of that means watching for new laws, such as how NAC does. But the process of general acceptance is a slow one.

Joe

I am from NYS too. A law was passed here several years ago that it is legal for women to be topless anywhere it is legal for a man to be topless. This applies to every state beach in New York, but I don't see too many women at Jones Beach taking advantage of it, or many women at the other sections of Robert Moses either. There are many young women in Long Beach who go topless.

Any of the laws applying to the lack of coverage of selected body parts always have to do when you get to the bottom of it with SEX and Sexual attraction.

There are always caveats and the above law had one about it being ok as long as one does not behave in a "lewd and lacivious manner". Now that has a broad interpretation, and could meana that if a woman was simply lying on a blanket getting sun, well that's ok. However if she decided to get up and dance to some tune on the radio, well that could be interpreted by the local officials as "lewd and lacivious".

I note the OP is from France. Laws here in the US often don't have anything to do with justice, but with the vagaries of societal whims. I'm sure all of the western countries have such laws on the books.

Zevei

[nacktman]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
it is always interesting to see men discussing women's issues.

I would guess that the reason women are not outraged is because it is not important to most women. Women have been socialized to be "modest" and that means covering their breasts. If you feel this way, you will see no need to go topfree and therefore, will not be outraged by such a law. In fact, many women consider it disgusting for other women to be topfree.

That is not necessarily a view I hold. I live in a province where it is perfectly legal for women to be topfree where ever it is appropriate for men. I have no desire to be the only topfree woman in the crowd for a variety of reasons.

Thanks, Still_Boreas I was wondering if the ladies would respond.
The Mrs. says the same things and almost verbatum as you did.
The exception being that here it is not illegal for a women to be topless per se but that there are "laws" that can be used to harass any that would be so it's not worth the bother and not to mention that "variety of reasons" you mentioned.

[Sanslines]

quote:
it is always interesting to see men discussing women's issues.


That's because so few women are active contributors to the forum; so the guys feel compelled to respond so that someone will.

Yes this is true and will not change when a certain individual in this forum is allowed to run women off with no challenge from anyone including the higher up.