Topless women win big as Colorado city drops ban
www.nbcnews.com
Officials in Fort Collins decided it's not worth the money to fight for its ordinance banning women from appearing topless in public.
  • NastyNative@mander.xyzEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    Take a chick on a date you walk down the boardwalk and take off your shirt cause its hot. She also takes off her shirt and bra and whips them out. In my mind I dont want anything serious with her anymore. She goes under fun but not wife material. Most men I know have this preference also.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    I have an “umm what about” regarding “of all ages.”

    Say a 15 year old girl decides to walk topless down main street. Is everyone on that street who has a security camera running going to be convicted of making child porn?

    I don’t trust the legislature to have been competent enough to edit the rest of the code to reflect that change nor do I trust the thin blue line punisher sticker crowd to pass up something they can portray as a crime.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        No (s)he’s not, this is VERY pragmatic. US police officers love pushing their authority up your rear end given the chance, and if you even accidentally recorded a topless minor, you could be in for.some fun.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago
        1. am I the one doing that? And 2. Is it the bulk of the problem?

        Me personally, I have no particular need for legislated prudishness. I don’t see much of a difference between the Taliban requiring women to wear a headscarf than whatever red state requiring women to wear a top. A lot of that nonsense is done to enforce a particular religion, and I personally want all religions to be thrown in the toilet with all the other worthless assgarbage.

        There was a point in time when things such as bikinis and miniskirts were seen as scandalously immodest. The people who saw them that way are mostly dead now and we can move on, which is what will ultimately happen here. Some women will start going topless to the beach, the newspapers will write some stories about it, there’ll be some arrests, there will be some court cases, there will be some laws passed, and then it’ll settle in as just a thing people do sometimes.

        The problem I have is that I think people with cameras are going to be punished for incidentally filming topless girls in ways they’re not for incidentally filming topless boys. Shall I illustrate with an example?

        Consider this video of a walking tour of Panama City Beach, Florida. . There are a lot of videos like this, tours of various places around the world, they’re filmed in public places, often from streets, sidewalks etc. There’s a lengthy segment where the cameraperson walks down the beach and records several boys and men without shirts on. The video is on Youtube, uncensored and monetized. No one anywhere has a problem with this because we categorically do not consider male barechestedness to be nudity.

        The argument here is women and girls should be allowed to be barechested anywhere men and boys are. Okay, so the instant we make that change, we also need to change the rules that say it’s not okay to see, photograph, record or broadcast barechested women and girls. It needs to be equally okay to upload pictures of barechested women and girls to Youtube without censor bars or blurs. Because then it becomes “when he does it it’s not nudity, when she does it, it’s not considered nudity but it is still in fact nudity.” You don’t get to require people in public to avert their gaze.

    • Specal@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      To answer your question seriously, no. Having pictures or videos of a 15 year olds breast is not by default porn, it’s only porn once it’s in a sexual context.

      • Nounka@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        So… if i would look at it … O nice i know that store she walks by = pic is safe O nice tits i gonna jerk off to it = pic is porn ?

        Than one pic can be porn for one and safe for an other. I must be missing something.

        • Sludgeyy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          Intent

          Was the picture taken for sexual intent?

          Security camera taking a video of a topless 15 year old intent was not produce a pornographic image.

          You as the security guard saving the picture of later…your intent is to make it sexual.

          Now if you saved the picture because you needed to figure out which store the topless 15 year old was by. Your intent is to not make it sexual so that would be fine.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Does “in a sexual context” have a falsifiable definition? I mean, here’s an article from the American Bar Association journal about a man who was arrested and deported for “child sexual abuse” for having photos printed of himself kissing his infant daughter after a bath.

        The accuser was the photo lab tech. After the man was arrested and deported, his wife was arrested, their child was removed from them, then the investigation took the whole roll of film into consideration and found there was no child abuse, this was photographic evidence of loving parents caring for their child. “Sexual context” indeed.

        I envision a future where a business owner puts up security cameras around his shop, those security cameras send their video to “The Cloud,” an underage girl walks by topless in view of those video cameras, as is her legal right to do so, a closed-source unauditable CSAM detection algorithm running on “The Cloud” flags the video as CSAM, and the business owner gets arrested, his business and/or home destroyed or even killed before an investigation determines no wrongdoing. Because we put the time for reasonableness after the bodies have cooled. We check to see if it’s a false positive after the “arrest” has been made. THAT’s the ultimate problem I have here.

        • Specal@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          I mean that’s alot of effort to go through when they could just as easily plant CSM on someone if they wanted to. I understand the paranoia people have, but there are easier ways to fuck someone’s life up.

  • Deconceptualist@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    AFAIK anyone can go fully nude in most public spaces in Germany. It’s actually kind of weirder to not allow it and carve out arbitrary exceptions if you think about it.

    • delirious_owl@discuss.onlineEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      I think its decriminalized, not legal. That way the cops can just arrest people they want to discriminate against and let the white Christians violate the laws.

  • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
    0·
    2 years ago

    Legal in Ohio as well for women to go topless. I’m not sure if there are any age restrictions or anything.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Idk of age restrictions but it’s not an explicit right here, so most municipalities have laws against it. Columbus doesn’t though so you can free the tits there

  • roofuskit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    Equal protection clause. Any law that imposes itself on women and not men should be unconstitutional.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    • delirious_owl@discuss.onlineEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Dunno, an intentionalist would argue that by “people” they were only talking about rich white men.

      Obviously they didn’t think slaves were people. Why would you think the considered women as people?

          • roofuskit@lemmy.worldEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

            Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

            No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

            The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

            The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

            There’s a lot going on there.

            And you’re thinking of the 13th amendment.

            Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            You might want to spend more time studying our constitution if you’re going to participate in discussions about it.

    • kungen@feddit.nuEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Should, but laws outlawing toplessness are almost always upheld by the courts, unfortunately.

      “Protecting the public sensibilities from the public display of areas of the body traditionally viewed as erogenous zones — including female, but not male, breasts — is an important government objective.”

  • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.eeEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    The prohibition on public exposure of breasts by women and girls over 10 years old is now gone from the city code as of this week.

    I never thought I’d be conflicted on this, because I am absolutely of the opinion that female breasts and nipples shouldn’t be treated as exclusively sexual body parts, especially since men have them too and we aren’t held to that standard.

    But being confronted with the idea that 10-17 year old girls can now bare their breasts in public without restraint reminds me that treating female bodies as non-sexual is great as an ethos, but it is not reflective of reality, and that this specifically could be problematic.

    But how to solve it? You can’t make it an 18+ only rule, or you’re further entrenching the idea that female breasts are exclusively sexual and adult, but if you let teens and tweens go topless, they will be sexualized / ogled / photographed by adult men, and that’s a bad precedent to set as acceptable. We usually treat photographs of underage female breasts as a form of CSAM, but can we still say that if we’re treating female breasts as non-sexual? This is an interesting new line to draw, given societal attitudes on adolescent nudity.

    Regretfully, I believe that the true problem is men. The reason women have to cover their breasts is because they have to protect themselves from men. I’m all for bodily liberation and the de-sexualization of female existence, but we need an overhaul on our society’s attitudes towards women in general if we’re going to get there. Maybe bare breasts help get us there. Maybe girls need to learn the right way how to kick a man in the balls before they go topless.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      So you feel that women should be arrested and prosecutable if their nipples are exposed?

      That’s very misogynist. And no, you can’t argue for the law to “save the women” from all those perverts. Because the whole point of this is to free women from the bullshit laws that allows society to prosecute them while pulling double duty by effectively shaming their bodies.

      Most women are not going to run around topless voluntarily. But, even if they did - say a group of girls or women decided to go skinny dipping or whatever at a lake, do you really believe they should go to jail for that?

      Don’t mansplane and tell everyone these laws are for women’s own good, because they aren’t. Inventing this bizarre photographic scenario is just bizarre. It’s a fiction of your imagination and is a straw man argument.

      You are correct that the true problem is men, but not how you think it is.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Are you okay? OP’s post was pretty well written, and the guy only explained his moral dilemma without being disrespectful and you come shouting down like a banshee.

        His point is a totally valid one and should be discussed to alleviate any moral dilemma to be had.

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.comEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      To answer your question, it could be legal grey area because not all pictures depicting nudity are automatically considered pornographic, if you are speaking in terms of legal precedent regarding obscenity in the US.

      To further muddy the issue, photographing other peoples kids is considered creepy by nearly everyone but it isn’t expressly illegal unless certain localities have specific statutes against it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, so you have the potential situation where people are doing a presumptively legal activity in a public area where photographing that activity could be illegal depending on… intent?

      Further, the courts have ruled that getting naked in public in the act of protesting something is part of protected speech. Presumably that applies to people of all ages and sexes as well but I doubt it has ever been tested.

    • KuroiKaze@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Comments like this are why I left reddit. This is a completely hinged and totally reasonable thought process that calls in a question, a lot of facets of the issue and ways them against each other appropriately. Maybe something more crazy would spark a bunch more replies but I totally like that Lemmy is a place that just lets people be normal.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.worldBannedEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      The true problem is not a problem, it’s the reality of human sexuality where most men and some women see female breasts as sexual most of time.

      There are different situations where nudity of all kinds is not perceived sexually, that doesn’t affect the general rule that I shouldn’t run around the block all naked.

      Saying it’s not equal because men too have nipples and those are not perceived as sexual is kinda strange. Let’s abolish pregnancy leaves then. Gender may be a social construct by now, sex is obviously not, and (most) humans are not hermaphrodites, so the rules can’t be the same.

      This is a nothing burger of a subject frankly, we already know that real world doesn’t fit ideal ideas. If some ideal idea would describe the real world, then you’d only need that ideal idea to know it all and other information wouldn’t matter. Some religious fanatics are actually trying, destroying all the knowledge and art not coming from their holy book.

      This doesn’t work, the real world is as complex as all the information in it. An action is good or bad only in a particular real situation.

      Which is also why choosing a seemingly ideal enough principle and trying to fit it to everything, pretending that makes everyone equal, is a lie.

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.eedeleted by creatorEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Women are allowed to walk around in sandals and no shoes at the beach despite foot fetishes being one of the most common paraphilias(behind breasts.)

        You don’t see women getting accosted by guys who like feet because they have their toes out and it’s sexual to some guy nearby.

        If dudes into feet can control themselves and be respectful then so can dudes into breasts when they are near a top less woman in public.

    • LemmyRefugee@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      You are inventing a problem that does not exist. Go take a walk where it is allowed and see how many girls are walking topless in the street.

    • yamanii@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      This is a western society problem, in tribes where women don’t cover their breasts the men are interested in other parts.

        • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          These fucking 304s walking around with their exposed ankles will never find a husband. How will they live without a husband to get a bank account for them? They’ll die miserable and destitute, and they’ll deserve it.

          And I’m not an incel for saying so, because I have a kid! Checkmate, cucks!

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.caEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    Also legal in Ontario, Canada. A woman was arrested for walking around topless in hot weather. She was finned by police but topless men in the area were not. Ontario courts eventually rulled this was discriminatory but the provincial government did not appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada so the ruling only applies in Ontario.

    • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.netEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Happy about this. A scant few hours ago I had an over the fence conversation with my neighbor and neither of us were wearing shirts. It’s the ideal way to live.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Take Oklahoma off your list because in Tulsa they will still arrest any woman who does this. Apparently they refuse to follow that law that was passed.

      I know because the city made big fucking stink about it when Tulsa women started to go topless when it was found to be legal. So they passed and ordinance making it illegal within city limits at public spaces so practically everywhere.

      • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Have there been any lawsuits about that? Surely someone has done it so they could then sue the city right?

        • Trigger2_2000@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          I bet they would charge them with “Creating a public disturbance.”

          That’s what the cop who told me in Indiana, “Sure, you can wash your car at a public car wash while having a pistol in view; it’s not illegal. But I’ll arrest you and put you in jail for ‘creating a public disturbance’ in less than a heartbeat”. And, no, he wasn’t joking.

    • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Yeah despite there being a law against discrimination, the cops are obviously going to use their subjective view of things like lewd behaviour to charge topless women where they wouldn’t men.

      • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.caEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        That’s literally the law Ontario courts rulled cannot apply to topless women as it is discrimination.

        On July 19, 1991, a sweltering and humid day, Gwen Jacob, a University of Guelph student, was arrested after walking down a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless after removing her shirt when the temperature was 33 °C (91 °F) and was charged with indecency under Section 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code

    • vovo@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Where is that? I think women often don’t walk around topless because men sexualize them or take photos, etc.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        As a woman who’s done it: it’s mostly just awkward. I don’t go topless unless it’s an occasion warranting it or it’s way too damn hot to wear a shirt. The men don’t help for certain, but there’s just also the element of being the only shirtless woman around

      • xpinchx@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Could be anywhere, it’s legal in a lot of the US but nobody partakes because it draws unwanted attention.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          Which is how it SHOULD be viewed! If you’re going to be intentionally sexy in a public place, you should expect people to notice. I don’t walk down the street with my balls hanging out of my pants…well, unless I’m single.

          • Vilian@lemmy.caEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            Being shirtless isn’t being sexy is just being shirtless, not the same as balls, and thinking that your balls would help you not being single is…weird

            • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              You just admitted that balls are sexy. How WOULDN’T they help me not be single?

              Fetticini

              Linguini

              Bikini

              Martini

              You’re gonna love my nuts!