Sexual Adolescents Controlling Women: City Council on Public Nudity

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Debbie Gray:

These legal restrictions on nudity in other areas of the USA and the 
relevant court decisions are interesting and important, I'm sure, if there 
is a legal challenge to Moscow's ordinance.  But bad court decisions are 
rendered every day of the week, and many absurd and harmful laws are on the 
books.  The issue is open to debate and new court precedents can be 
established.

What is or is not an erogenous zone is tremendously variable from individual 
to individual and subject to cultural conditioning.  And what once was 
considered a scandalous exposure of female erotic body areas is now regarded 
as acceptable for public display.  Compare women's attire from 1900 to 
2000!!  I think part of the reason we have this ridiculous controversy over 
topless females is the hyper-sexualized American male who has been 
conditioned to have an extreme fixation on this part of a women's anatomy.  
If women being topless in public was regarded with respect and normalcy this 
would be accepted as OK, just as women in running shorts and t-shirts is OK 
now, though a century ago it would have been scandalous.  I see this issue 
being similar in a way to the blame that has been placed in the past, and 
still is in some cases, on women for being raped when it is claimed they 
asked for it by being too seductive, wearing sexy clothes, etc.  Women are 
being restricted by men for the desires men are not mature enough to handle. 
  Why should a women who wants to sunbathe at the park or swim at the pool, 
and feel the sun and wind and water on her chest, like anyone male or 
female, be restricted because of men who say they cannot control their 
sexuality?  Isn't this in some sense making women the victim of men who are 
sexual adolescents?  And in fact are not many so called adult men just that? 
  Including the judges and lawmakers who most often have fashioned these 
nudity laws?  I for one believed Anita Hill about current Supreme Court 
Justice Clarence Thomas, though I know this is not directly related to our 
nudity issue here in Moscow.

Ted


>From: Debbie Gray <dgray@uidaho.edu>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: City Council on Public Nudity
>Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>For some interesting reading on public nudity and a collection of state
>and local laws in re. to public nudity, see:
>http://www-hep.phys.cmu.edu/~brahm/legal.html
>
>If you don't have time, here are some interesting points:
>
>1. Who has public nudity laws banning the exposure of "genitals, vulva,
>pubis, pubic symphysis, pubic hair, buttocks, natal cleft, 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 of any female
>person" generally excluding those under the age of 10 and those
>breastfeeding?
>
>New York, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Arizona, Minneapolis Parks and
>Rec, South Carolina, just to name a few. My point is that all the people
>who think this is just some hilarious gaffe in a backwater state are
>probably living under the exact same laws in their own
>states/municipalities.
>
>2. Breastfeeding is legally seen as a woman's RIGHT. Therefore, laws don't
>'legalize' breastfeeding while outlawing nudity, they protect the RIGHT to
>breastfeed. New York even includes breastfeeding as a civil right (see the
>La Leche League for further info). Therefore, this shouldn't even be
>included in the discussion of public nudity (though it is good to have
>legal clarification for those officious members of the public).
>
>3. "There is no federal law against nudity, but _neither is it a
>Constitutionally protected right_.  Its legality is therefore determined
>by state and local laws.
>
>---The U.S. Supreme Court, in _Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc._, 111 S.Ct.
>2456 (1991) [*09], "concluded that the enforcement of Indiana's public
>indecency law to prevent totally nude dancing does not violate the First
>Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression."  Chief Justice Rehnquist
>wrote, "This governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
>expression, since public nudity is the evil the State seeks to prevent,
>whether or not it is combined with expressive activity.""
>
>Therefore, public nudity laws are interpreted as not suppressing the right
>to freedom of speech but rather they are suppressing the behavior
>ofnudity. If you substitute any other 'criminalized' (defined as such by
>laws)  behavior for nudity, it helps conceptualize it. Eg. a law against
>murder aims to supress murder, not to supress the freedom of
>expression one could use in killing someone.  (yes, I know that is an
>extreme example but i am surprised nobody's tried to argue their right to
>murder someone under the freedom of expression)
>
>4. Most of the laws include an exemption for 'artistic performance' such
>as a theatre or musical. So perhaps the carwash women might
>claim to be 'performance artists'?
>
>4. Here's an interesting case which discusses the 'unconstitutional
>gender-based classifaction' and the judge's ruling about the
>differences between men and women in the world of common sense (who cares
>about legislating morality, I'd rather legislate common sense!)
>
>Lee Ann Turner was arrested on September 8, 1983, for sunbathing topless
>at Wirth Lake in Minneapolis.  Turner was found guilty and appealed on
>First Amendment grounds of free expression.  The appeals court noted that
>the Minnesota Supreme Court held that "nudity is not protected expression,
>but conduct, which the city has a substantial interest in regulating via
>its police power... PB2-21 does not unconstitutionally infringe on
>Turner's right to free speech granted by the United States or Minnesota
>constitutions." [*10]
>
>Turner also claimed that "the ordinance creates an unconstitutional
>gender-based classification," this violating the equal protection clauses
>of the U.S.  and Minnesota constitutions.  The appeals court concluded:
>"PB2-21 advances a legislate governmental interest in the preservation of
>public decency and order... The female breasts, unlike male breasts,
>constitute an erogenous zone and are commonly associated with sexual
>arousal.  Common knowledge tells us that there is a real difference
>between the sexes with respect to breasts, which is reasonably related to
>the preservation of public decorum and morals...  There being such a
>difference between the breasts of males and females (however undiscernible
>to the naked eye of some), and that difference having a reasonable
>relationship to the legitimate legislative purpose which it serves, the
>ordinance does not deny equality of rights or impose unequal
>responsibilities on women.  Protection of society's norms is a legitimate
>legislative goal.  The slight difference in clothing requirements imposed
>on the two sexes is necessary if the legislative purpose is to be
>served... In certain narrow circumstances, a gender classification based
>on clear differences between the sexes is not invidious, and a legislative
>classification realistically based upon those differences is not
>unconstitutional.  When men and women are not in fact similarly situated
>in the area covered by the legislation in question, the Equal Protection
>Clause does not mean that the physiological differences between men and
>women must be disregarded.  While those differences must never be
>permitted to become a pretext for invidious discrimination, no such
>discrimination is presented by this case.  The Constitution surely does
>not require a State to pretend that demonstrable differences between men
>and women do not really exist."
>
>Anyway, that's quite an interesting site (as is: Naturist Action Committee
>at http://nac.oshkosh.net/) and it seems that the city council has come up
>with wording that is very similar to case law across the country. As for
>selective enforcement, I am glad that police officers do have the power of
>discretion. Reaching far back to my criminal justice classes, their is a
>difference between administration and ministration of justice. This allows
>the police to analyze the situation and make decisions on a case by case
>basis. Otherwise, we might as well have robot police who immediately
>ticket or arrest every single offender for every single crime, large or
>small.
>
>Personally, I don't see the 'topless carwash' as a political statement,
>expression of equality, or civics lesson. To me it is simply a few women
>who want to make quick money. The quote in the Spokesman by Daisy (?)
>about what she would have to do if the carwash was shut down? "Job" is all
>she said ...
>
>Debbie
>
>%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
>   Debbie Gray      dgray@uidaho.edu      http://www.uidaho.edu/~dgray/
>   We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to
>   have the life that is waiting for us." --Joseph Campbell
>%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com