A court has ruled that women's nipples do not enjoy freedom of expression under the US Constitution. The case was brought by a 16 year old girl, who was one of three women accused of exposing their breasts to passing traffic on an Indianapolis street last year. She would have faced a misdemeanour charge of public nudity if she …
I'd personally prefer it if men were subject to the same obscenity laws as women. Who wants to see some ugly fat football yob or a scummy chav with their shirt off in the summer? Not me that's for sure.
the place and context is relevant here
It seems reasonable to me for different places to have different standards determined by local bylaws. I don't want to see either men or women going topless in meetings or premises of my Church. But I don't have any problem with either gender going topless in a park or on a beach on a sunny day.
The fact she was exposing her breasts next to a major road creates a probability of drivers taking their eyes off the wheel, creating a risk of accidents. I suspect some men going topless here could create a similar risk amongst some women or gay motorists, so in this context it seems reasonable for local bylaws to apply equally to both genders. I don't think local bylaws can realistically discriminate against people for being young slim and beautiful or old fat and ugly, and I also can't see any reason why these bylaws need to discriminate based upon gender.
If you don't like the look of something, don't look at it.
Thank god I'm Canadian
The constitutional challenge has happened - women enjoy the same rights as men. And I get to watch.
F**ing Perfect Society
"If you don't like the look of something, don't look at it."
Would you use that argument were a fellow patron in a restaurant or bar standing right near your table with their schlong hanging out for the missus to behold over the entree?
@If you don't like the look of something, don't look at it.
If only it were that simple. You've never been transfixed with horror then....?
Anyone else read it as "Indiana Jones dismiss girl's nipple exposure appeal"?
Shurely you're not suggesting
That Indiana Jones is not the man the films make him out to be? I'd be careful how you wave that contention about, you may find yourself on the sticky end of a suit from Spielberg's lawyers..
This is a total outrage a woman freeing her baps she should be publically horse whipped.
More research needed
This definitely needs some more hands-on research. Where do I sign?
Pathetic, prudish, moronic "assholes".
It is frightening to me that, in supposedly free countries in a supposedly enlightened time some people still insist on thrusting these narrow-minded outdated and pointless "morals" upon populations.
If a "... substantial portion of Hoosiers who do not wish to be exposed to erogenous zones in public..." then, perhaps, they should look into forcing women to wear head-scarves which cover their neck and ears -- hell, perhaps they should do like those nice guys in Saudi do and force them to wear burkas?
Completely agree with you. I assume that the judge is also referring to male and female erogenous zones in the guise of impartiality. Male nipples are erogenous zones too. As are the lips, ears, necks, feet... hell - the entire epidermis could be considered as such. Wrists were a particular favourite of an ex of mine..
The conclusion is that we should all cover up from head to toe.
You're a secret Ayatollah - obviously!
you don't have to live there!
If that's what the local people want, who the hell are you to tell them how they're suppose to live?! You're the moronic asshole!
Point of order
What's worn by women in Saudi is not the burka, but the hijab with the niqab, which leaves the eyes uncovered. You may be thinking of the full face covering imposed in many parts of Afghanistan and NW Pakistan.
It may be considered prudish but breasts are regarded as erotic by the majority of people, and their display might offend those who don't want to see them in public.* From the sounds of the case, the girl knows this. The fact that they are erotic was the reason she was flashing passing cars for thrills, to the enjoyment of some and disgust of others. There's also the fact that it'd be a distraction to drivers, but that's something else to worry about.
*Not by me, I hasten to add.
Depends on the country
Seriously, if breasts are considered that dangerous for mrkinins what would happen if someone in the USA puts up the classic M&S "I am not average, I am normal" billboard (they have done a sterling job of wiping any mentioning of that off the web). Or Sophie Dahl Opium ads.
Both have featured very prominently at a roundabout near where I live positioned deliberately so you look at them when looking at merging-in traffic.
And do not even get me started on the subject of Eastern European alcohol adverts (Warning NSFW):
The judge added, "We conclude that Indiana's public nudity statute furthers the goal of protecting the moral sensibilities of that substantial portion of Hoosiers who do not wish to be exposed to erogenous zones in public."
So that would be the neck, moobs, ears, mouth, fingers, etc, etc, etc.... roll on Burkas in Indiana then.
As far as I'm aware, men do not have 'breasts'. (Where 'breasts' is a euphemism for 'mammary glands'.) Men do have rudimentary nipples but these are non-functional (obviously) and are just a left over due to a missing tidy-up task during foetus finalisation.
So, how can the law, which is supposed to be correct and exact (ha, ha, ha) discuss 'male breasts'?
Let me enlighten you
increasing obesity leads to adipose tissue deposit in the breast area in men - send me your email and I'll send you a pic
RE: Basic Biology
>> As far as I'm aware, men do not have 'breasts'. (Where 'breasts' is a euphemism for 'mammary glands'.)
Wrong, men do have breasts but the amount of tissue is very much less than in women due to the effects of hormones. You may also care to look up some basic biology and you'll find that what is commonly referred to a "the breast" is not the only place breast tissue is to be found - it actually extends up to the armpit.
Under the influence of hormones, the male breasts will enlarge into "man boobs", or more correctly gynecomastia.
Also, they are not exclusively non-functional in males either - male lactation is a known condition.
Doesn't anyone watch the documentaries on TV these days ?
No offense intended
I wouldn't trust anyone on this site with my email address.
Madame Bee excepted, for obvious reasons ;-)
Can we reverse this
And use it to get men to cover up in public :-)
The correct ruling was to ban topless exposure of both genders ?
TheRightIdiot Judge Cale Bradford ...
... would likely further his education by spending time on any one of many Southern California beaches. I can assure HisIdiotness that the ladies ogle male pecs just as much as the lads ogle the ladies variation on the same ... with a little mixing & matching, of course.
Perhaps we should all go back to Victorian woolen bathing costumes?
Mayhap HisIdiotness's wife/daughter/granddaughter sports a burqa?
 There is a reason there is an "ogle" in "google" ... It's called "human nature".
But north of the 45 you can!
The Ontario Court of Appeals made it legal for women to be shirt-free in 1996 when it overturned a charge against Gwen Jacob, a University of Guelph student who was arrested for being topless in public.
Crinklaw and Webb say women may have won the legal freedom to be topless in public, but they don’t have the social freedom. They want their event to help desensitize the masses to the female breast.
Paris because Britney isnt an option for a follow-up to her Beaver making an appearance!
it isn't 45!
The western boundery between Canada and the United States is the 49th Parallel. East of Manitoba it presses much farther south. Indeed most of the population of Ontario lives south of 45 (which passes through, among other places, Bracebridge Ontario, home of Santa's Village).
South of the 45th?
Sorry mate, I leave in St. Paul, Minnesota, where the 45th runs through a nearby suburb. The parallel you want is the 49th, which even then, works west of Lake of the Woods. East of that, you have Thunder Bay Ontario and various points east, where the border dives south.
Somebody gotta do it
I will take one for the team
Pics or it Didnt happen !!!
*runs from Miss Bee
Well done that girl
She has a point, probably nipple shaped, and I agree 100% with her modern day values that women should be allowed to walk around baring all if they so please. It's about time we embraced feminism and equal rights to out female counterparts.
I'm sure I won't be the first, but....
.....pictures! Or it didn't happen!
So, mens nipples aren't erogenous zones? I think that you'll find that they most definitely are, and so should be barred from public appearances. Or, the ladies should be able to get theirs out. Fairs fair after all.
Having said that.
Legally, I think you should have the right to do it. But really, there's a time and a place for all things, and perhaps a little more personal responsibility is called for in this case.
I know of only one, it's called skin.
Down with underwear!
"public sensiblity and stereotypes were being used to define the law"
No shit, Sherlock?
I probably won't be the first, but ...
"pics or it never happened!"
The grubby one, thanks.
But they are obviously not equal, male nipples are unable to produce milk, ergo, they are different from female nipples! Though technically male nipples are female nipples.....
Narrow minded Old Farts. Canada says different, eh!
Get this IN 1996 an Ontario Court said that bare women's breast are not breaking the law!
Good old square Ontario, Canada! (see: < http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/News-opinion-and-commentary/Topless-in-Ontario-women-exercise-the-right-to-expose-their-breasts.html >.)
Other interesting citations can be found: < http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=mhg&rls=en&&sa=X&ei=UpGYTLf2HIfuvQPut5ncDA&ved=0CBIQBSgA&q=bare+breasted+girl+in+ontario+lawful&spell=1 >.
Just for the record...
It's the Indianapolis Star, not the Indiana Star.
This Indiana must be in Saudi Arabia
Indiana clearly doesn't have beaches or this wouldn't be an issue.
That judge must feel a right tit!
they have one
its about 50 miles long(about 77 km i think) along one of the Great Lakes. Problem is that they are dotted with steel mills and other heavy industry for about 30 of those miles
Legislating from the bench
The judge seems to be making the law instead of interpreting it.
What about breastfeeding?
It certainly isn't erotic and has benefits for both mother and baby. Is this also outlawed in public?
Obviously breast feeding wasn't involved in this case, but the law doesn't appear to distinguish between erotic and non-erotic exposure.
As we all know, in places like the US, breastfeeding is a no-no
because baby-formula manufacturers cannot make a taxable proffit from it. Corporate needs trump the individual every time. It's the law!
In the prudish USA, I believe it is, and women have actually been arrested for it.
Actually in 44 states it is illegal to ask a breastfeeding woman to leave an establishment.
It is also protected by law on Federal property. Indiana happens to be one state where it is specifically legal to breastfeed in public.
Seriously, people, look this shit up before posting blindly in the dark. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14389 has US breastfeeding laws by state and territory.
This case was about exposing the nipples completely as a means of expression, which has little to do with breastfeeding.
On a related note...
... I was in a cafe once where a woman was breastfeeding. I overheard some people tutting and muttering, and shortly afterwards they called over a waitress. They loudly whispered their complaint and the waitress said "I am sure the manager will be able to assist". The manager came out and sympathetically listened to their wibble - I was just about to add my $0.02 when he signalled to the waitress - who whipped away their half-eaten meals - and asked them to leave: 'I'm afraid I don't allow offensive behaviour in my cafe, please don't come back'. The rest of us cheered!
why bother with any morality at all....
Let's just have one big world-wide orgy and be done with it all. Now that pregnancies can be aborted, what's the hold up? After all, we all know that God doesn't really exist, there's no heaven or hell or Satan, so let's do it, cause it feels good.
What's with the baby stepping our way into what we all want? Let's just get laid all day long, every day. To hell with family, marriage and kids. You bang mine and I'll do yours! We can start with a block party, then go city wide and finally end with the whole world boinking in unison.
You seem to be new here ...
... so a word of advice - if you truly believe the things you have put in your posts in this strand, you may want to make sure that you have no problems with your blood-pressure!
I thought you might have just forgotten to put a NSFW tag on this article, but was disappointed to find that it really did not need one.
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests