In 1992 New York State’s highest court ruled that it was legal for a woman to go into public without covering her breasts. Many people have derided that decision — most calling it immoral — and by most moral standards they are probably right. In most places in the world, covering your body is considered as important, if not more important, than cleaning your body. So in New York, in spite of a law that allows it, the overwhelming majority of women do not bare their breasts in public. Why? Two reasons: The main reason is because women have been taught since childhood that exposing their breasts is embarrassing, sinful, immoral and, in general, “unladylike.” The second reason is that most citizens of New York — including police officers — have no idea that it is perfectly legal for a lady to bare her breasts in public.
Case in point: Two years ago, a 27-year old New Yorker, Jill Coccaro took a walk without covering her breasts. She was arrested, taken for a psychiatric exam, and thrown in jail for 12 hours. Finally, after someone in the District Attorney’s office realized what had happened, she was released and told no charges would be pressed. In turn, Jill sued the city and, just recently, received a $29,000 settlement.
Don’t try this outside of New York! Anywhere else in the country you will likely have to pay dearly for your ‘nature walk.’
The questions this issues raise are: Is someone being victimized by a pair of breasts? Is a lady endangering anyone’s life or destroying anyone’s property by shedding shirt and bra? These are, of course, rhetorical questions and the answer is: course not! So if no one or nothing is damaged by a pair of exposed breasts, why should it be illegal anywhere for a lady to walk around with her breasts exposed. Might this be frowned upon by those who object to the practice, yes! Might a topless lady be subjected to social castigation, certainly! A topless lady will certainly not be allowed in many places of business and that’s fine; but to be incarcerated and fined for exposing your breasts — that’s ludicrous.
Our legal system is supposed to protect us against people who want to, or in some cases unintentionally do, harm our persons or our property; the legal system should not be misused to enforce social taboos! There are many things I don’t like to see — and I’m sure there are many things you don’t like to see; some of these things may just upset you and some may deeply offend you — but should they all — or any of them — be made illegal?
In this case, we’re talking about the human body. Hey, everyone has one and they all basically look alike except for gender differences. If you don’t like to look at a naked or partially naked human body, YOU may be the one with the problem and if you teach your children that they should be ashamed of their body you’re passing that problem on to the next generation.
On your next vacation, I would suggest a week in a naturist facility or, as some call it, a nudist camp; by the end of the week you will have an entirely new perspective.
Links:
Houston Chronicle: Topless woman accepts $29,000 in NY settlement
Beloit Daily News Editorial: EDITORIAL: Exercising ‘right’ to be indecent
From the blogosphere:
Humor in Verse: You have nothing to loose except your bra-strings
Tim Worstall: Phoenix Feeley (Jill Coccaro)
News and commentary by: Whymrhymer can also be found at the My View from the Center and at The American Chronicle Family of Journals
Loading ...
17 users commented in " Why Should Public Nudity Be Illegal? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAll cultures cover up. Lots of reasons. Nudity is not really very popular in northern Minnesota in January, for obvious reasons.
And even in hot climates, you have mosquitoes and ticks. Ever see National Geographic, where “primitive” people cover themselves with red ochre or mud?
My favorite is the New Guinea tribe who let the men go naked except for wearing a long gourd youknowwhere.
Why would they do that? Ever treat a snake bite or poison ivy in that sensitive area? Sunburned nipples? sand fleas? Scorpons?
Women, of course, have a different reason to wear something down below, at least for one week a month.
As for topless women, in many countries, the breast is for babies. Usually any woman over age 18 has one or two, and sags. And few of the feminists who take such cases in the US to court would ever be featured in playboy.
“Don’t try this outside of New York! Anywhere else in the country you will likely have to pay dearly for your ‘nature walk.’”
Not true! You should have looked a bit east and done some fact checking. Unless prohibited by local ordinance total nudity, female or male, is perfectly legal in Vermont. Lewd behavior, however, is a felony. 100 of us rode nude in the Burlington World Naked Bike Ride this year through the downtown of Vermont’s largest city at mid-day and broke no laws!
The following was written addressed to the editor of the Beloit Daily News, whose editorial is linked as part of the above blog comment. For the record, it’s not just violations of topfree equality or naturism and related religious rights which indirectly result in the status quo of violent oppression via bad laws and cops in many jurisdictions, but all mala prohibita (loosely, the class of laws called victimless crimes) which make drug policy, sex or “lewdness” regulation, speech codes, and “nudity” laws all Constitutionally defective in the USA. They’re not healthy for us as people either. Naturism is a religion for some people, and an element of religious practice for many more, and is overdue to be so recognized in law. Topfree equality is merely a civil rights stepping stone in many cases, not a “wardrobe malfunction”.
===
I wonder if the BDN editor would get it if someone suggested he’d
advocated his own kidnapping at gunpoint by men with truncheons,
firearms, and a radio linked gang capable of rounding up anyone like him?
After all, that’s about what happened to the victim of the false arrest
in NYC, and what he’s advocating is in effect using the same government
mercenaries to deprive more people of civil rights, whether related to
their own religious or cultural beliefs, or to impose his prejudices and
bigotry on others. It matters not whether that perverse version of
so-called “decency” is his conscious, malicious intent, or if as was the
core issue of People v. Santorelli, Schloss, et al (the uncited NY state
topfree equality case), his bigotry motivating advocacy of organized
criminal conspiracies to deprive topfree females and naturists of our
civil rights is based on subconscious prejudices and bigotry he advocates
violently imposing on others.
Of course newspapers are entitled to pander such yellow fishwrapper
tripe. It’s their civil right to do so. Free of being shut down, or
having editors or staff kidnapped at gunpoint, and free of coerced
psychiatric review for choosing controversial forms of fully legal speech
or actions. It’s equally the right of naturists for whom that is an
element of religious practice to be free of coerced infringement of their
rights, whether some bigot editor likes it or not, or understands why and
how he’s motivated by overt or institutionalized prejudices sometimes
confused with social norms. It’s also the right of naturists for whom it
isn’t necessarily an element of personal religion to live as a naturist
openly in society, free of bad laws or recklessly negligent violations of
clearly litigated precedent as in the discussed NY wrongful arrest case,
when those laws are based on warped Abrahamic dogma misapplied by
government. True bible scholars, unlike most malicious or religiously
illiterate bigots, know that bible dogma states that its jurisdiction
only applies to its own adherents, and not the “other people”
constituting the majority of humans (though one might wonder about bible
thumpers, who certainly don’t act like Christians even though they claim
to be).
It’s only decent, in terms of basic human respect and dignity, to avoid
using dogmatic notions like “indecency” as an excuse for violent thuggery
to deprive neighbors of civil rights. To act otherwise is in effect
advocacy for ignoring the rule of law, in which case, firebombing the
Beloit Daily News or kidnapping the editor at gunpoint, is about as
justified as what this cowardly thug of an unnamed editor advocates.
It’s not just topfree equality as is widely protected on the streets in
many states and universally in Canada which must be protected to honor
basic human and civil rights, but full so-called “nudity”. Where they
exist, rather than being fabricated by arbitrary interpretations of
Disorderly Conduct and similarly problematic laws, “nudity” definitions
in Constitutionally defective laws are based on certain body parts seen
by some dehumanizing and unrealistic sects with Calvinist roots as if
sexual, and as if that’s “evil”. That is not a valid basis for any US
law, and honest courts would have long ago found the notions defined in
“Pacifica” (so-called “indecency”) about as incapable of legitimate
regulation by US laws as Jacobellis v Ohio found religious right
malicious efforts to have courts define and censor pornography, dating to
1964 law.
The only “decent” thing to do is for misguided bigots to learn the roots
of their prejudices, and do the sometimes difficult emotional growth to
get over them and respect civil rights of neighbors, near and far. That
includes newspaper editors, who profit from the same 1st Amendment others
merely demand be used to protect their rights to live free of overt or
institutionalized bigotry others espouse as if an excuse for violent
oppression.
We could talk about how indoctrinated body phobias and reliance on
textile costumes and retail face paints increase teen suicides,
particularly for girls, and long term emotional traumas for many adults,
in effect causing many commercially promoted common parenting and school
patterns to be child abuse. We could talk about how nudist raised kids
by teen years show on average 18 months greater developmental maturity in
key areas, like personal identity concepts, boundary awareness, and
decision making skills, than kids indoctrinated to define themselves
around external costumes. But, those issues of social psychology are
complex, and far easier to dismiss without serious study, than to think
about how mature parents, schools, and churches would look closely at
what about nudist parenting styles in the US and Europe are healthier for
kids than indoctrinated phobias and self deprecating body images.
There is no law against topfree sunbathing for females in Hawaii either, unless at organized STATE PARK beaches, which are a small percentage of Hawaii beaches.
I guess it’s true that fewer people are watching television these days. Some of the cable channels have discovered a source of free, sexually explicit programming. It’s called Spring Break. Take a camera to any one of a hundred beaches in Florida during this period and you’ll find females of all ages and sizes bearing their breasts to anyone who might possibly be with a TV production company. There seems to be an urge, a compulsion, an uncontrollable drive to uncover the old mammaries whenever the glint of a camera lens is pointed their way. This is wny laws against bare breasts in public are so coercive and unfair - these laws seek to remove an insistent drive in women stronger than the urge to bear children or seek political office. It’s the absolute need to flop them out wherever crowds might gather. None of these “documentaries” show a bathing suit top in sight. In many cases the bottoms are gone too. Producers sell these gems of cinematography to the TV outlets. The outlets sell commercials to the advertisers (increasingly, the makers of those cell phone that also take pictures). The advertisers then target the hapless couch potatoes watching the screen through a beery glaze. Is this a great country or what?
I believe topless women are legal in Texas and/or Austin.
Nude beaches should be there, I guess, for the perverted people of the world who like that kind of thing (to each there own as long as they are not hurting anyone), but bringing kids to them should be illegal. That could end up hurting them. (I had a step sister who used to take her daughter to a nude beach and t). They have no say in whether they go or not…someone justs drags them there. Also, it’s disgusting for them to see all those adult private parts on display (that’s an adult world) and they shouldn’t be unclothed for other perverts or pedophiles to gawk at them with disgusting thoughts in their minds (and don’t tell me they don’t think about that stuff). That just fuels the sex abusive ways of thinking in adults. If it’s all “no big deal”, as people always like to say, then why not go to regular beaches? People go to nude beaches (not private, but with others’ around) because they want to show off their bodies to others and gawk at others nakedness. Let’s face it. It’s a porno adult thing. What is the big thing about being naked at a beach? Why would anyone desire to take their clothes off at a beach? What, a little piece of material (bikini, etc.) is too much for you? Give me a break! I also, don’t understand, why someone would go to nude beaches and ‘not’ take their clothes off (it should be mandatory then). It’s obvious why they are there. They just want to look at everyone else naked..ewww. Why would someone want to see fat pervey people naked anyway? especially at a beautiful place like a beach. Why would you want your spouse or whatever gawking at others’ bodies that are better than yours, etc.? It’s just so gross. Kids should not be aloud at those beaches. I don’t know why the government don’t protect the children in this? That’s crazy! I suppose these so called ‘parents’ of these kids are also sexually abusing them or being pervey with them. I don’t understand the sickness. People are seriously whacked!
This comment is for username “yuk” (July 31, 2008 at 11:22 AM)…
You obviously have no clue what nudism really is and only think of it as sexual because you’ve been brainwashed to think that. You are, sadly, not unique in this country. Many people associate all kinds of nudity as sexual and, therefore, only for adults over 18 and linked to pornography. You say kids should not be allowed at nude beaches and such. Why? If children don’t learn about the natural human body at an early age, how else do you think they’re going to learn? Maybe your way is correct. Keep children hidden from nudity. Then, don’t complain when kids have such negative views of their own bodies, sometimes to a point of anorexia and similar disorders. Don’t complain when kids have unnatural feelings for the opposite sex. Is it any wonder underage teens are getting pregnant at earlier ages than ever? If they don’t learn the correct way about nudity, they’re going to get their info through media, magazines, pornography, and their peers. And, we all know how they brainwash kids.
I wasn’t always a nudist. I grew up like a *cough*cough*”normal”*cough*cough* boy and thought like you and most people do…that nudity is only meant for sex. Then, as I became a teenager, the addiction to sex and pornography started. I used to buy sex magazines and when the internet came around, porn websites were my addiction. This addiction was destroying my life and I had to find some way out of it.
Then, somehow, I found a nudist website (merely by accident, thinking it was a porn site) and had a look. The porn addiction did not go away overnight. That took a long time, but the more I went into nudist websites, the less sexual they became. Finally, I realized nudity had nothing to do with sex and decided I wanted to be a nudist myself. And, the rest is history. Enough said?
That said, I think public nudity SHOULD be legal everywhere. I do not wish the younger generation to have the same porn addiction I had when I was younger. Sadly, many do because they’re not taught about nudity in a non-sexual way, just as I wasn’t. See, if people would get used to seeing nudity on a regular basis, it would not even be a sexual taboo and there would be no reason for such addictions. Nude is not lewd.
Which is better…seeing nudity in its natural settings or lusting after airbrushed supermodels and porn stars, leading to many cases of sexual addictions? The answer should be obvious, but it seems most people favor the latter than the former. Why?
REASON 1:____________
Ever see National Geographic, where “primitive” people cover themselves with red ochre or mud?
My favorite is the New Guinea tribe who let the men go naked except for wearing a long gourd youknowwhere.
Why would they do that? Ever treat a snake bite or poison ivy in that sensitive area? Sunburned nipples? sand fleas? Scorpons?
Women, of course, have a different reason to wear something down below, at least for one week a month.
MANY QUESTION … If children don’t learn at an early age, how else do you think they’re going to learn?
I SAY … FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS ALMOST ALL NATIONS AND CULTURES HAVE RAISED THEIR CHILDREN IN DECENCY. DO YOU THINK THOSE CHILDREN HAD ANY DIFFICULTY PERFORMING OR EXPLORING OR LEARNING HOW TO MATE WITH THEIR SPOUSES ?. ITS ALL NATURAL ‘baby’, IMBEDED IN GENES.
As for topless women, in many countries, the breast is for babies. Usually any woman over age 18 has one or two, and sags. And few of the feminists who take such cases in the US to court would ever be featured in playboy.
ALMOST ALL OF US COMPETE AND FOLLOW EACH OTHERS DRESSING STYLES AND FASHION. IF NUDITY BECOMES NORM (AND ITS HAPPENING), ONLY AGE GROUP BETWEEN 18 TO 19 WILL LOOK GOOD, REST WILL BE JEALOUS, DEPRESSED, ANGERRED OR EVEN REBEL OR ATTACH OR RAPE THE GOOD LOOKING ONES.
REASON 2:____________
Private Nude clubs should be there, I guess, for the perverted people of the world who like that kind of thing (to each there own as long as they are not hurting anyone), but bringing kids to them should be illegal. That could end up hurting them. Also, it’s disgusting for them to see all those adult private parts on display (that’s an adult world) and they shouldn’t be unclothed for other perverts or pedophiles to gawk at them with disgusting thoughts in their minds (and don’t tell me they don’t think about that stuff). That just fuels the sex abusive ways of thinking in adults.
It’s all “no big deal”, as people always like to say, think before saying. Why would someone want to see fat pervey people naked anyway? Why would you want your spouse or whatever gawking at others’ bodies that are better than yours, etc.? It’s just so gross.
KIDS WHO ARE ONLY AWARE OF THERE OWN BODY, SHOULD NOT BE EXPOSED TO AGED PRIVATE PARTS, AT BEST ITS USELESS INFORMATION FOR THEM AT THIS AGE AND AT WORSE THERE SEXUALITY WILL BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED. IN MY OPNION TODAYS UNNATURAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOURS ARE RESULT OF NUDITY AROUND US.
MANY QUESTION … If children don’t learn at an early age, how else do you think they’re going to learn?
I SAY … FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS ALMOST ALL NATIONS AND CULTURES HAVE RAISED THEIR CHILDREN IN DECENCY. DO YOU THINK THEY HAD ANY DIFFICULTY PERFORMING OR EXPLORING OR LEARNING HOW TO MATE WITH THEIR SPOUSES ?
Try researching nudism before you comment on something you know very little about. Thank you.
That’s the problem with many people. They’re so closed-minded that they think nudists are exhibitionists or “perverts”, thus linking nudity with sex once again. With nudism, real nudism and not swinging, nudity has NOTHING to do with sex. I’m going to try to post a few nudist websites (if this site lets me post links) on my next comment. I encourage anyone who thinks nudism is all about sex to look into any of them and then, come back and comment.
Sorry that’s the only one for now, but it’s very important. Maybe at another time, I’ll come back with other websites, but for now, I encourage anyone to look into that website.
Answer me this. If NO ONE is being hurt by bare breasts in public, simply because they are a part of the human body, then by your same argument a man or woman should be allowed to go out in public completely naked. I wonder how many of the “free breasts” promoters would be offended by the sight of an uncovered penis in public?
what is the importance to cover up the body especially sexual portion. I do not think there is any importntant as everybody knows the other persons body structure. As a man I know what I have in my body, and I also know what another women owing in her/their bodies, it is open secret to all human.
Clothes are necessary only to protect bodies from sun lights or for other purposes.
The government has overstepped it authority now a days. Laws against nudity, Laws against sexual orientation really these laws or made by the majority, mainstream Christians. They want to hold everybody up to the standards of their religion but, in a way, that is violating our freedom of religion by holing us up to morals of a religion we have no part in and very well may not believe. This government was made for freedom, the only laws should be those that protect freedom, but lately, the laws have been protecting the majority’s beliefs not the freedom to have a belief different of that of the majority. In my mind nothing is immoral unless it harms another person or encroaches on their rights. Being offended does not cause harm seeing somebody nude does not cause harm. You may not like it, you may find offense to it, but if I don,t like what your saying does that give me the right to shut you up? No. That’s because it would harming you by encroaching on your right of self expression. I’m aloud to criticize, I’m aloud to disagree, but I cannot make it illegal for you to talk because I don’t like what you saying. In the end our opinion doesn’t matter. It only matters if the act in question is causing physical harm or is violating your freedom.
A person ought to be able to go naked any where as its a religious taboo anyway to cover the naked body in public and if we are to cover our genitals then we ought to be made to wear gloves, masks, caps and cover every part of the body as I cannot understand what is so offensive over one part of the body over another as everyone has the same sex organs as the other. And if its so-called-bad then why aren’t animals required to cover themselves up in public?
Leave A Reply