Slog tipper Cheryl directs us to this charming article about one woman’s foray into going topless in New York, which is totally legal there:
To be able to walk around New York City all careless and fancy free like that, breasts unfettered, the cool breeze rushing across your chest…it all seemed so wonderful, yet unattainable. I would never have the gall to do that, I thought. Social conventions being what they are, there’s no way I could possibly carry that off without attracting an incredible amount of unwanted attention, making people mad, scarring children for life, potentially getting harassed by the cops, etc. Why, oh why, can’t I just air my tits out like it ain’t no thang? STUPID AMERICA.
And then I was like, well, why the hell not? What’s the point of having toplessness be legal in New York City if you can’t taste of its sweet nectars? Social mores don’t just change overnight; someone has to go first and make it look like fun, and then, with any luck, the rest will follow, and someday it becomes normal, right? In the name of being the change I want to see (as well as anecdotal sociology), I decided to swallow my fears and hang out topless in Central Park Sunday afternoon.
Without giving too much away, the crux of people’s negative reactions to her social experiment seem to be, “Think of the children!” (Because no child has ever seen a breast up close before.)
It’s illegal for Police officers can cite* Seattle women for exposing their nipples in public. And as a lady, there are legitimate reasons to be wary of going topless—hygiene issues, unwanted harassment, increased risk of nipple cancer (maybe it’s a thing!), etc. Still, to feel the wind between your breasts! The freedom of choice!
So I ask you, sloggers:
*A few people who love being naked en masse and have done so in Fremont that one time are now frothing at my “illegal” word choice, saying that there’s nothing on the books that specifically prohibits nudity. This is true. However, there is also no law that states “women shall be allowed to let their boobeths flyeth, etc**” and there are varying statutes that leave citation up to SPD discretion. So, basically, you can be hassled by police if you’re naked and someone complains or there are children about or an officer decides, for whatever reason, that you’ve been “acting obscenely.” Wow! You’re right, guys! That’s totally comforting!
**There is a pro-breastfeeding clause in some statute I read somewhere, but that isn’t at issue here.
@21 Any kid with half a brain can watch clown midget beastiality rape porn. Why not stripclubs?
While I think women ought to be allowed to walk around topless if they choose, there’s no way I would do it, for purely practical considerations. Those of us with bigger boobs just tend to be more comfortable in a bra. And sunbathing?! Not on your life! The last thing I want is for my pale self to fall asleep in the sun and get some awful burn on my tits that will never go away. Eesh.
Forget ‘the children’, what about the rain? When is it ever hot enough here to go topless? Late July and half of August?
@38
I think the law regarding nudity is that it in itself is legal, however, if a person is offended by said nudity, then it is an illegal act.
Interesting how this law works, but that is the legal standard, weird, huh!?
Just like Bill said about abortion:
“IT SHOULD BE SAFE, LEGAL, AND RARE.”
“Boobies! Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. “
there would be with most of those that chose to do it
I suppose I should elaborate on the rare part? I loves me some good boobies, but I’m guessing the sort of people who are going to flaunt ’em at 11am on a Tuesday aren’t the ones you or I want to see. At the same time, it shouldn’t be a crime to whip ’em out in the middle of wild time or in the course of a performance or… well… 11am on a Tuesday.
I wouldn’t be whipping ’em out nor especially inviting most women to do so, but I’d be more bummed if someone got arrested for it. That’s even sillier than whipping ’em out at 11am on a Tuesday.
Isn’t the answer obvious? Only if they have nice tits……
I’ve always loved NY and Paris in the springtime, when the ladies take their titties out for walk. In Seattle, there are so many frighteningly ugly and/or fat womyn, I’m not sure I want to see them out getting fresh air.
Gee, New York must have changed since I lived there, when women could barely walk down the street without being harassed, fully clothed.
Tube tops were in style back then, but I didn’t dare wear one at the height of summer because I knew some asshole would just pull it down, first chance.
Did take advantage of a nude beach at Fire Island, tho. And two twelve year old boys did seem to get a kick out of that, one day when I was alone there.
So much for “the children.”
People equate certain body parts with porn because they’ve been conditioned to perceive those particular parts as having no other function than for sexual activities. If you want to “de-objectify” those parts, the BEST way IMO is to present them in as many non-sexual contexts as possible.
It’s the same as the “attraction of the illegal”: the more you stigmatize something, the more attractive it becomes. Remove the element of moral judgement, and the attraction to it diminishes by leaps-and-bounds; never fully, because, there are always going to be that handful who just can’t evolve beyond their adolescent urges, but mostly, yes.
But of course, that would require re-conditioning every single bible-thumping literalist who insists Gawd implanted the concept of “shame for our nekkid bodies” into us for daring to be curious about the difference between “good and evil”, so, you know, there’s that….
@56: “I didn’t know “Fantasy Fest” was a city”
It’s not. Fantasy Fest is festival held in Key West, FL.
@21: “Yeah they seen a boob before so lets let kids into strip clubs”
I’d let my kids take figure-drawing classes. I wouldn’t let them get a lap dance or drink. Your analogy is shit.
“BEST way IMO is to present them in as many non-sexual contexts as possible. “
That’s not tough with the ugly mingers that pass for wOmyn in Seattle. Seriously, did 90% of the women here get hut with the ugly stick? No way I want to see their tits, I’d have nightmares.
If they’re literally “flapping” in the breeze, you may want to wear something to provide some support.
I’m male, and I can’t really walk around shirtless without children cowering in fear of the monsters that could be hiding in my chest hair.
The sight of human body parts is not in any way harmful to children, and people would realize that if they actually thought about it instead of going off of knee-jerk reactions.
I went to college in New York 20 years ago and there were a few women who walked around campus bare-breasted on nice days. I was a bit startled when I first saw it but definitely impressed when I found out it wasn’t against the law and they were just brave and comfortable with themselves. Their breasts were perfectly attractive, too, so I have to protest all the people assuming women who desire to go topless will have ugly breasts. I think for the most part the only women with the bravery to walk around topless have to be pretty comfortable with their bodies and no one who thinks they are going to get an “ewwww” (which is 99% of women’s opinion of themselves, probably) is going to risk it. Unless they are at some sort of hippie parade, but those aren’t every day…just practically every weekend…
Also, appropos of almost nothing, I have to say that pasty Germans on nude beaches are the most unwelcome sight ever. Just take off the sun hat, black dress socks, and shoes, dude. I can handle the sight of your droopy scrotum on the sand, but not the bizarre partial outfit.
Though I voted for “Waffles,” given some of the tits I’ve seen on nude beaches, the proper choice would have been “Flapjacks.” Carry on.
68/threnody: …and no one who thinks they are going to get an “ewwww” (which is 99% of women’s opinion of themselves, probably)
I know that conventional wisdom seems to be all that women have a negative opinion of the way they look, but I beg to differ. I think women who are pretty or have nice bodies (or both) know very well that they’re attractive. That doesn’t mean they think they’re perfect, but they know they’re attractive. They certainly don’t think “ewwww” about themselves.
Aside from that, I agree with you in disagreeing with all the people who assume women who would go topless will have unattractive breasts.
40: My girlfriend just got back from Munich, where she sunbathed naked in a public park.
Sounds like Englischer Garten, Munich’s “Central Park.” I think it’s kinda famous for that. I was there with a girlfriend years ago and there were definitely a lot of nude people.
Here’s a short article in Speigel Online: Get Naked With The Germans
I’m cool with it from a legal standpoint, but to be perfectly honest I don’t like men walking around topless either.
It should be mandatory.
j/k boobies are gross!
I used to think Super Paradise beach was so funny when I was 18 and visited Greece. Now I desperately want to go back and be naked myself.
I was just at Riis Beach (in New York) with my topless lady friends today and, aside from a few longer-than-usual stares, no one seemed to care at all. And, best of all, they really seemed to enjoy the freedom (because forcing women to cover their breasts in public is, historically, just another way society has controlled women). My friends laid out on towels, swam in the ocean, walked around… they did draw the line at topless frisbee, though.
Cienna wrote: It’s illegal for Seattle women to expose their nipples in public.
Just not so. What is your source for your statement? Check the facts.
Aside from public nudity being more tolerated in certain areas of Seattle, it is just as lawful to be nude whether it upset anyone or not. Stripes and Plaid offend me, but I’m capable of looking the other way or putting up with it. Compare: the four sunbathing beaches/parks used for decades VERSUS a residential street in Magnolia or Sandpoint or White Center — some areas have learned to live and let live, others prefer a more gymnophobic response.
p.s. The charge of Disobeying an Officer (or Disorderly Conduct) has nothing to do with public nudity, it has to do with obeying a police officer when they give you a direct order (not a request or suggestion).
Female toplessness is also legal in Columbus, Ohio. Maybe the whole state, but definitely Columbus. Don’t you feel really backwards now, Seattle?
That said, I would never walk around topless. I have been sexually harassed over the size of my breasts while wearing jeans and an oversized sweatshirt and a baseball cap and smelling like fried food (just got off work in a restaurant – back of the house – and was headed out for a drink with a friend) – and that’s just one of the most offensive times out of thousands of times I’ve been harassed. I don’t need anymore unwanted attention. While I feel my boobs are normal-big (like, I don’t need to order from specialty retailers and no lingerie store employees have ever winced at my size…or even really had to dig for it), I get a lot of attention for my ladies. I have to walk by a hardware store where lots of day laborers hang out to get to the subway in the morning, and if I’m considering wearing anything remotely revealing, I wear an XXL t-shirt to work, pack my top, and change in the restroom (and change back into the t-shirt before heading home…the laborers start drinking around noon and are particularly obnoxious between 6 and 7:30 PM, and there are a few gems in my neighborhood that will hoot and holler up until around 10 PM). It’s sad that that’s what drives my decisions on what to wear, but right now it is what it is.
I vote nay. I’d like to vote yay, but Seattle women are butt ugly, I think I’d vomit. Please spare me.
Los Angeles, however…
Any woman who wants to go topless should be allowed to, of course.
I’m a 34D and get a lot of unwanted attention with my top on, so I’d never choose to go topless. But others should feel free.
There is a severe shortage of perfect waffles in this world.
Wow, the comment about the law shows a total lack of understanding of our legal system. With the exception of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, laws are prohibitive and not permissive. Our WA law says that Indecent Exposure is illegal – and not that it is illegal to be nude. It is that action that is illegal, not the state of dress. It is how you behave when nude. Look at the record of prosecution of nudity in Seattle over the last decade. The police may cite you but the prosecutor has repeatedly refused to bring it to court for simple nudity. So, don’t just pay the ticket, ask for a court date. Of course, it will probably never get that far. Several years ago there was a demonstration for a nude beach on the north side of Discovery park. We weren’t going to be nude but the police thought we were and were there. One guy didn’t get the message and got nude. They arrested him and took him off to the West Seattle police station (why go that far) – but they told him it wouldn’t go any further and brought him back after about 2 hours. Some people say they are offended. Show me where there is a right NOT to be offended in our State Constitution or anywhere in the USA. Tain’t one!
Wow, the comment about the law shows a total lack of understanding of our legal system. With the exception of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, laws are prohibitive and not permissive. Our WA law says that Indecent Exposure is illegal – and not that it is illegal to be nude. It is that action that is illegal, not the state of dress. It is how you behave when nude. Look at the record of prosecution of nudity in Seattle over the last decade. The police may cite you but the prosecutor has repeatedly refused to bring it to court for simple nudity. So, don’t just pay the ticket, ask for a court date. Of course, it will probably never get that far. Several years ago there was a demonstration for a nude beach on the north side of Discovery park. We weren’t going to be nude but the police thought we were and were there. One guy didn’t get the message and got nude. They arrested him and took him off to the West Seattle police station (why go that far) – but they told him it wouldn’t go any further and brought him back after about 2 hours. Some people say they are offended. Show me where there is a right NOT to be offended in our State Constitution or anywhere in the USA. Tain’t one!
BTW, there was a permissive clause added to the Indecent Exposure law – to avoid continued harassment of breast feeding women, it says – breast feeding is not indecent exposure. So, there at least that should be undeniable.
@ 80/hwmson – good clarification about our legal system, thank you!
Curious to hear raving reviews about the freedom in NY, but so little mention of Washington’s neighbor to the south. A few cities in Oregon are mentioned as being topfree friendly, but actually there is NO law in Oregon against topfreedom for men or women, in ANY jurisdiction. In fact, simple nudity (complete nakedness) is not illegal in most of Oregon, although a very few jurisdictions have passed ordinances that prohibit the public exposure of genitalia (breasts and butts, of course, are not in this category). Portland, Happy Valley and Ashland are a few of the places with such ordinances (in contrast to what #33 says), but complete nakedness is still tolerated at times in those venues when it is recognized as a first amendment “free expression” , as in the naked bike rides for example. What is curious to me is that more people that desire freedom do not avail themselves of the freedom THEY HAVE!
It is obscene that a woman may go topfree in a bar for the titillation and profit of a man but not in a public park for her own comfort. Women’s breasts serve no more of a sexual function than men’s, except in the minds of a culture that fetishizes them.
@83, No, you can be completely nude, at least in Portland:
Being naked in public in Portland is legal if it falls within the guidelines of ORS 163.465, which are included below.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.465. Public indecency
(1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:
(a) An act of sexual intercourse;
(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.
@84: Actually, there’s quite a bit of biology underlying why (straight) men like looking at women’s gazongas. See, in most apes, female buttocks are objects of male sexual desire and their visual appearance serves as an indicator of estrus. Once our predecessors switched from quadrupedal to bipedal locomotion, shoulder boulders became more visible to males than buttocks, and so masculine sexuality became fixed less and less on the buttocks and more and more on sweater puppies.
And so yes, male admiration of a pair of stonking great tits is not purely societal.
hey we’ve all seen the inside of a pussy too, so why should it be illegal for a woman to hang around a playground wearing nothing but a lucite speculum cranked up to 11?
Or are you pearl clutching prude?
Topless in public is just fine but the “kids seen it before” argument is weak.
This idea that only attractive people you want to have sex with should go around unclothed is ridiculous. People really tend not to look that much better/worse with or without clothes, and, anyway, the point of being naked isn’t always to be sexualized.
Spaceapple, comment #1 – Good, point but actually the part a baby sees first is the vagina…so why not total nudity? I LIKE the idea!
the fishing lure hypothesis doesnt work, since the prohibition is not universal. the part of hte world i live in, women’s legs, butt and thighs have the cultural charge that breasts have in the USA and a woman walking in daisy dukes is more or less like a topless new yorker. Very young women and very old women can go topless but wearing tight pants, skirts above the knee–thats iffy. If i am bresatfeeding men, women and children feel no compunction about leaning in to tickle and talk to the baby and the breast is totally irrelevant.
Nay? Yay? or Meh?
As a middle aged woman, I’ll go with Meh. It’s just another one of those things in life that will take 1 millisecond to become:
1. another thing for women to feel inadequate about.
2. another thing that really is just about what straight guys fantasize over.
3. another thing that anyone will rant about when a woman doesn’t meet their standards.
4. Another thing for women to compare, compete, and establish a pecking order with other women.
5. Another thing for teenage girls to warp into a nonsense version of their reality.
6. Another thing to make older women feel like shit.
7. Another thing to conflate with a sense of empowerment.
8. Another thing to make “less endowed” women feel like shit.
9. Another thing to make a feminist – but still modest – woman feel like shit.
10. Another thing to make breast cancer survivors to feel like shit.
11. Another thing for conservative fundie types to condemn.
12. another thing for liberal “anything goes” types to fight for.
13. Another thing to debate.
14. Another thing that says “it’s “sex positive” and “hey all kinds of bodies are sexy and it’s all okay” . . . or “It’ll stop women’s bodies from being so sexualized” . . . or whatever. It’s still about the sex. . .
15. Another thing. It’s just another one of those things in life.
So yeah. “meh.”
alright, aside from my rant above. . . if were just talking about what’s “legal” and not what I think about the social aspects are. . . I’ll go with:
. . I think it should be either illegal for both men and women to be topless or not illegal for any men and women to be topless.
84/Rangeroon: >Women’s breasts serve no more of a sexual function than men’s, except in the minds of a culture that fetishizes them.
In addition to what venomlash said @ 86 in response, women’s breasts may serve no more of a sexual function than men’s, in the sense that they’re not directly used in sexual reproduction as genitals are, but they certainly are involved in sexual activity more than men’s are. The purpose of breasts is not sexual — it is, of course, to nurse infants — but they are also sexual.
Lady Ga Ga, your lengthy rant seems to assume that legal toplessness would equal mandatory toplessness. In fact, all it would do would be to allow those women who choose to go topless to do so without any legal ramification.
Also, based on items in your rant, I’m curious: do you think men should find all women equally attractive?
@61- There’s more to New York than the fucking city. /Upstate
This entire comment thread could be transposed back to the 1920’s with the subject being whether or not it should be legal for women to expose their knees.
I’m all for women who want to let their titties be free, as long as they aren’t doing it for (obvious) sexual titillation because hey, didn’t consent to be part of your sex life.
But there’s no way I’d do it myself, and not for any feelings of inadequacy or anything – my chest just needs as much support as it can get.
@93 That doesn’t excuse fetishizing them.
@86 That’s some serious evo psych right there. Especially considering female homo sapiens have concealed ovulation.
@94: heh. . . yeah that came off pretty rant-ee.
but. . as far as men? I really didn’t have the “attractive to men” thing on my mind. I caught the gay years ago.
@93 Wait, I had to read this again.
“but they certainly are involved in sexual activity more than men’s are.”
In what way? and based on what?
@87: I don’t care if my kids look at boobs. It is not the same as a gynecological exam. You are just getting dumber and dumber as this thread goes on. If you think “EW GROSS” the problem lies with you, not with boobs.