Legislating the Human Body

Just when you thought the culture wars were over, the sexually-repressed among us rear their ugly heads with more ridiculous attempts to further control the human body, and, in the process, actually widen the spectrum of human skin areas which are defined as being sexualized.

In Federal Way, Washington, officials are considering changes to the public morals code in order to stop the spread of "bikini baristas", women who serve espresso while scantily clad.

If approved, the amendment will classify indecent exposure as a misdemeanor offense. It will prohibit a person from intentionally exposing any part of the genitals or pubic area, parts of the buttocks, the areola, nipple, or more than half of the breast area located below the top of the areola in public. Streets, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, automobiles (whether moving or not) and businesses open to the public, including those containing a drive-through window, are considered public places.

The amendment would address risque attire, such as pasties, associated with bikini baristas. Body paint or dye, tattoos, latex, tape or similar substances applied to the skin to mask any of the above anatomical areas will not be permitted in public. Substances that can be washed off the skin and those designed to stimulate the regions would be banned as well.

I guess police will now have to carry around human anatomy charts and tape measures to determine whether or not a plunging neckline or hot pants make the wearer a dangerous criminal.

I have news for you. The entire human body is covered with skin, which has many erogenous zones. Have you ever kissed someone on the neck, or nibbled on the ear? What about a foot massage, or a caress behind the knee? And is their really anything more arousing than a full mouth-to-mouth kiss, with tongues playing tonsil hockey?

No, this sort of legislative mapping of the human body, with the intent of making criminals out of anyone who dares to expose certain parts of anatomy, is way beyond reasonable government activity. This is legislators gone wild, so intent on protecting "public morals" that they are willing not only to trample on basic human rights, but directly violate the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution by discriminating against women.

And not only are these people trying to make the sight of a female breast illegal, they want to lock up "any person who touches, caresses or fondles the genitals or female breast, whether clothed or not..." So, will it now be illegal for a woman to adjust her bra in public, or scratch an itch, and will high school boys now have to grin and bear it when the urge to adjust their jock straps strikes in the middle of a game? And what about pinning on that corsage for the senior prom?

And is there an age restriction to this proposed amendment? Will 2 year-old girls be forced to wear tops while running through the backyard sprinkler? And what about women who have small breasts, or men who have large ones? Would a woman with a double mastectomy be allowed to be topfree? What about a man in the process of transgendering, who has both a penis and an ample chest? What if a man walked down the street wearing only pasties or tassels above the waist? Would that be worse than being totally topfree?

And how will areola size and location come into play? Any nudist knows that breasts, both male and female, come in all shapes and sizes. Who will be appointed nipple and breast judge in Federal Way?

And they won't even allow the sight of a breast which has been painted and taped over the "offensive" areas? Who is going to determine what these "similar substances" are? And what about see-through materials? Will it be OK for a woman to be completely covered in flimsy gauze, or clear plastic, even though the skin underneath is visible?

The arguments against this amendment are seemingly endless. It's simply stupid legislation, a knee-jerk reaction to what is perceived as a problem, but is really just overreaction to harmless human activity. By specifically targeting women, the proposed law is clearly unconstitutional, and will undoubtedly be challenged in court if it manages to pass.

All this coming on the heels of a ruling by the Indiana state appeals court which ignored the 14th Amendment and decided that banning the baring of female breasts in public is not discriminatory.

In the appeals court decision, Judge Cale Bradford wrote, "In the end, (the girl) would have us declare by judicial fiat that the public display of fully-uncovered female breasts is no different than the public display of male breasts, when the citizens of Indiana, speaking through their elected representatives, say otherwise. This we will not do.

"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."

I guess that the good folks of Indiana will not have to start covering up a lot more than their genitals and nipples. According to Discovery Health:

Other erogenous zones include the eyelids, the ears, and the shoulders. Many people also find that having their feet stroked is arousing. Stroking, caressing and massaging of erogenous zones can be titillating forms of sensual pleasure in and of themselves, or they can be invitations to further sexual activity.

The mouth, including the lips and tongue, for most people, is an area of high erotic potential. Kissing is one act that uses the sensitivity of this region in a sexually stimulating way.

France just banned the burqa, but Indiana is now apparently embracing it.

These attempts at controlling what people can or cannot wear are examples of the power of the state over what are generally understood as being freedoms of expression and speech, and in the case of the burqa, freedom of religion. We have plenty of things to be really worried about on this planet, such as nuclear war, climate change, AIDS, poverty, hunger, disasters, etc., but somehow in our feeble attempts to control the uncontrollable, we settle for regulating things that make us "feel" safer, or better, but in reality we are merely fooling ourselves.

Locking up women for showing a breast in public is not going to solve any of society's problems. Defining the parts of human anatomy which are unacceptable for public viewing is not going to stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases, halt teenage pregnancies, or lower the divorce rate. It's just more examples of impotent government unable to solve real problems, running around shooting straw men and flailing at windmills in order to present to an uninformed and fearful public an illusion of competence.

The rise of a dangerous politician like Christine O'Donnell who wants to abolish masturbation and lust, yet hasn't a clue about fiscal responsibility or actual governance, is an example of a frightened and frustrated public, looking to people who preach about angels and demons instead of policies and decisions. Perhaps emboldened by this new breed of morality warriors which are capturing the hearts of the fringe right-wing, the Montana GOP is actually discussing once again making homosexuality a crime.

And does anybody think that 17 state attorneys general putting pressure on Craigslist to censor its adult section is going to have any affect on prostitution or sex trafficking? Of course not, but it makes headlines and people think that these elected officials are actually doing something to "protect" society from demons.

Take a look at this chart. The government's expensive and foolish war on drugs has resulted in nearly triple the number of arrests for marijuana since 1990, while the number of pot smokers has not gone down, and might have actually increased a little. But somehow ruining the lives of nearly one million people in this country is justification for what is, in truth, abject failure to actually solve the problem.

It seems to be the fate of all big governments, from the ruling emperors of ancient Rome to the juggernaut which is our own Federal system, that in order to protect the people from themselves, a few heads must roll, and it's always the heads of the weak which are the first to fall under the knife. In dealing with the bikini barista "problem", the authorities in Federal Way haven't a clue about what to do, so they take out their frustrations on the women, who have no money to defend themselves, and are merely trying to earn a living. Whether or not this is exploitation is beside the point, because everyone is exploited to some degree in society. The issue here is equal treatment under the law, and this amendment specifically targeting women is government by men at its worst: sexist, cruel, discriminatory, and oppressive.

This is precisely why I get so angry at our nudist organizations, AANR and TNS, when they let their egos get in the way of the common good for nudism and naturism. If you think that nudist resorts and clubs are exempt from this sort of government overreach, then think again. All it takes is one emboldened, crusading moralist in a position of authority to start railing about the evils of nudists and the danger they pose to the general public, and specifically to children. It will matter not if there is any truth to the demonizing, or any shred of evidence - what will matter will be the public reaction and the ensuing actions of the legislators and judges, who have shown at least in the Indiana case of the topless girl, that the 14th Amendment does not matter when the "moral sensibilities" of the people are at risk.

Our government has shown that it is willing to ignore our Constitution when votes are on the line. On one hand laws and ordinances are enacted and clarified to prevent any display of public nudity, but on the other hand, in the interest of "national security", all airline passengers are going to be stripped naked electronically to be examined by security personnel. Our bodies no longer belong to us.

So I hope these bikini baristas in Washington state stand up for their rights, and in Indiana, the case of the topless woman should be appealed to the state supreme court. Moral "sensibilities", crusading politicians, the "will" of the people, and cultural norms should not be the basis for ignoring the 14th Amendment, which is clear as an azure sky in its simplicity: "... 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."

Equal protection to any person, man, woman, child, black, white, Hispanic, Muslim, Jew, Catholic, gay, lesbian, and so on. There is no way anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States can argue that the Federal Way amendment, and the decision of the Indiana appeals court, are in harmony with the basic law of the land. If a man can walk topfree in public, then a woman is guaranteed equal protection, and damned be those who would seek to legislate the human body and subvert the Constitution merely to curry favor with voters and protect his or her phony-baloney job.

So when you hear talk about repealing the 14th Amendment, be very, very afraid. These people not only want to control your body, but your heart and mind as well.

Television Interview With Andrea Simoneau

This Is Why They Are Marching

BANGOR DAILY NEWS PHOTO BY KEVIN BENNETT

The only way to end the discrimination against (and sexualization of) the female in American society is to let people see what a normal human body looks like, and demonstrate that the exposure of the female breast in public, by women exercising the same rights extended to men, is not the end of civilization, but rather an expression of a higher consciousness and another sign of the true equality women have been fighting for over the centuries. The lesson to be learned from this photograph is that more women need to join the fight for topfreedom, otherwise their bodies will be continued to be gawked at like the freaks in a circus sideshow. It's time for America to get over this notion that the female breast is something to be marketed for profit and sexual gratification, and to stop criminalizing women simply for their bodies.

Anatomy of a Topfree Activist - Andrea Simoneau

PHOTO BY AMBER WATERMAN, SUN JOURNAL/AP

When Andrea Simoneau was seven years old, she took her shirt off because she was hot. Her father came outside and told her she could not do that in public. When she asked why, he said, "I think its really stupid, but the rest of the world thinks that girls should not go shirtless."

That memory stuck with Andrea, and when she marched topfree with Ty MacDowell and others in Portland, Maine, a few weeks ago, she was inspired to take action.

At 1 PM on Friday, April 30, Andrea Simoneau and a crowd of both men and women will exercise their topfree rights in Farmington, Maine. The march will begin at Meetinghouse Park on Main Street and will go about a half mile to Abbott Park. Andrea says that 60 people have signed up on her Facebook page, but due to all the publicity it's impossible to predict the number of people who will participate.

"If we're protesting anything, its that societal double standard of women's chests being considered sexual, no matter what context they are presented in, and men's chests are only sexual in certain context", said Andrea.

The 22 year-old University of Maine Farmington senior, who has been on the Dean's list for academic excellence, has been walking topfree through the town handing out flyers for the event, with the word "Freedom" written across her chest. As for public reaction either pro or con to her free expression, Andrea says that it's "pretty evenly split, and there have definitely been uncomfortable confrontations. You just have to keep on going, and ignore them and do not engage with them or escalate the situation in any way, as that hurts the cause far more than helps it." In a radio interview today, Andrea says that most of the negative reaction comes from people who oppose her on moral grounds, and, of course, for the sake of the children.

"I believe no religious group should have any sway in lawmaking, as it promotes special interests for certain groups. Morality is subjective. Therefore, I feel that morality is not a grounds to stand on to make policy, and should never be."

Ms. Simoneau believes there is "no time like the present" to promote women's topfreedom, and credits Dr. Paul Rapoport and TERA for "great encouragement and assistance". She hopes that other organizations interested in equal rights for women will also pick up on the movement.

The April 3 topfree march in Portland, while successful in generating lots of publicity, descended into somewhat of a circus, with hoards of men tripping over each other to take photographs, and some of the female participants obliging with some cheesecake posing. "There's nothing that can be done to stop men from taking pictures or making inappropriate comments. However if any inappropriate touching occurs or assault, the participant must report it to the police. There are going to be a lot of counterprotesters present also, I am told, and the police have expressed that they will be present to hold order."

As for anyone acting in a sexual manner, Andrea makes it clear that she wants none of that. "Anyone I catch doing that I will personally ask to leave, with great admonishments about them undermining our cause. Those women's actions disgusted me about the Portland march far more than the men taking pictures and leering."

Although there are no laws in Maine specifically prohibiting the exposure of female breasts in public, Andrea admits her actions could result in a backlash, and people are already calling for laws prohibiting topfreedom. "The town of Farmington has decided not to take an official position on the issue, and has decided to defer it to the State legislature to be ruled on, possibly even put to state referendum. Since support seems to be so evenly split for it, I feel confident that even when that happens, we stand a good chance for it to be officially legalized, as I believe the law stands now that only genital exposure is "indecent" exposure. I will do my part to speak out to the legislature as well, as I hope women's equal rights organizations in Maine or even national ones will do the same."

Perhaps the most high-profile opposition to Ms. Simoneau's protest comes from conservative activist Michael Heath of the American Family Association of Maine, who is seeking records from UMF regarding a recent campus event for EqualityMaine.

Heath said he draws a connection between the upcoming march in Farmington and his records request because "the promotion and presentation of public nudity is a staple of the homosexual rights movement." Heath's recently founded organization is a chapter of the Mississippi-based American Family Association.

"We see an organic connection between the two," Heath said. "Many still confuse sexual license, and indifference to the gospel of Jesus Christ, with true freedom and liberty."

Calling the march "more typical of San Francisco than Maine", Heath joins other religious groups who plan to counter-protest, including women from local churches holding a silent prayer vigil, and Rev. Bob Emrich who recently helped to overturn Maine's gay marriage law.

But Simoneau says all of the criticisms of the march are off-base. For instance, the march will be held while children are in school and will follow a route that is away from schools, Simoneau said.

And in a way, Simoneau said, "we are doing this for children -- to create a more equal world for them by presenting a female body that is not a sexual contest."

"This is for a noble cause of gender equality," she said. "Giving up has not crossed my mind."

Adelle Shea, Canadian topfree activist and naturist, has come to Andrea's defense.

It is curious that it is not enough in our society that something not be illegal but instead must be made specifically legal in order to be enjoyed freely? In North America a woman going topfree risks being charged with anything from ‘causing a disturbance’ to a sex crime. Breastfeeding women faced, and in some cases still face, the same discrimination and many States and Provinces had to enact laws to make breastfeeding a child in public specifically legal. In some cases even this was found to be insufficient and laws had to be enacted to make harassment of a nursing mother (by passers-by, business owners, police) illegal. In this case the attending constables were a great help in protecting Ms Simoneau’s legal right and informing the public that she was doing nothing illegal. In my opinion, it isn’t topfreedom that is immoral but the systemic discrimination of women that surrounds it.

Andrea understands the wide societal ramifications of women's topfreedom in America. She says, "it saddens me greatly that nursing mothers are particularly discriminated against in this matter. I encourage nursing mothers particularly, as well as breast cancer survivors and those who have been victims of sexual assault to come out and experience the empowerment and freedom of going topless in town."

Eventually the topfreedom movement will need a leader, or an organization, which can mobilize women nationwide. Is Andrea up to the challenge? "I'm not a leader by nature, but if that role falls to me, I will do my best to fill it. I cannot do it alone, not by a long shot. I'm having a terrible time trying to handle this myself, though I have had help in advertising, definitely, from UMF students and friends."

If you would like to help Andrea, or participate in her march this Friday, you can contact her on her Facebook page here.

Columnist Belittles Topfreedom Movement

One only has to read this column to realize that the women's topfreedom movement exists in order to counter the immature attitudes and actions of men.

From my vantage point, there were only a dozen or so women who were nearly nude on top — I say "nearly" because they all wore pasties to prevent any actual toplessness. So basically, National Go- Topless Day was more like National Gawking-Men Day.

The men, by the way, were not topless themselves, for which I was grateful, as some of them had bodies the shape of meatloaf. By "meatloaf," I mean both the food and the singer.

The organization behind the rally is the Raelian Movement, which, according to the literature they handed out, "recognizes that life on Earth was created by advanced extraterrestrial scientists." So no, the whole "Go-Topless" thing is not the craziest idea they've ever come up with.

Naturally, this "writer" goes on to further ridicule the Raelian movement, which illustrates the problem with having a marginal UFO cult aligning itself with a serious equality issue.

The columnist goes on to say:

Somehow, seeing women dressed seemed sexier to me than seeing topless women marching down the street with a guy exhorting them with a bullhorn, but I guess it is all a matter of personal taste.

"Personal taste" has nothing to do with it, but this line does show that the criminalization of women's breasts in our society has nothing to do with equality, or civil rights, but more with the immature mental state of the American male.

Image via Wikipedia

Charges Dropped Against Topfree Woman in New Hampshire

Word is that the indecent exposure charge against Cassidy Nicosia in New Hampshire has been dropped. Hopefully some more details soon.

Previously:
Guns and Boobs 8/25/09

Eyesores

A commentary in the Times states that a precondition for a naturist beach is a "suitably secluded coastline."

The human body unadorned is only rarely a thing of beauty, and in few cases does its loveliness increase. A wish to avoid the unexpected sight of it is not prejudice but aesthetic sense.

Pure, unadulterated hogwash, and completely offensive, too.

The editorial also claims that naturism is a personal choice, and therefore not subject to legal equality considerations. Well, the wearing of clothes is also a personal choice - deciding what costume to don, what color combinations, what style. Same with beachwear. Some wear suits which cover most of the epidermal landscape, some wear next to nothing. One does not discriminate against people on the beach based upon their degree of coverage, so why should society place barriers against complete nudity, which is only one small step from what already exists?

The aesthetic argument against total nudity does not hold up considering the disastrous fashion sense of many people, or the fleshy folds which pour over the sides of bikinis and speedos. How can complete nudity be any more or less offensive than the supposed eyesores which already dot the human landscape?

No, the real issue here is genitals and nipples. Mostly the genital thing. Somehow over the centuries, people and their governments have decided that these sexual organs simply must not be seen in public, that they somehow have this power which will transform the average viewer into some sort of monster, out of control and destroying society. So we cover these parts up neatly and discreetly, protecting the children and little old ladies who might be ruined for life or sent to an early dirt nap at the mere sight of a penis or vagina.

Truth be told, we've all seen these body parts, and we see them every day when we get dressed, or bathe, or make love. We also see them in magazines, movies, art museums, and anywhere visuals occur, and when it comes to the Internet, it's becoming increasingly hard not to see genitals close up and angry, pounding into each other in full high-definition wide screen glory.

But somehow in natural, non-sexual settings like beaches and hiking trails, these genitals and nipples are eyesores, subject to the "stigma of the snigger", as the editorial so subtly puts it. And to dare call naturism a mere "personal choice" as if this is something to be dismissed - well, where would we all be without personal choices, which give us all uniqueness and spirit of life? Denying naturists their small spot of sand, merely because someone looking might be offended, is stomping on personal choice, and treads upon the basic human freedom we all should have to be natural in nature, as is intended by design, divine or otherwise.

There are very simple solutions for all those who are offended by naturists. Look away. Avert your glance. Bury your nose in a book. Cover your eyes. Walk somewhere else. Go to another stretch of beach. Do any or all of these things and you cannot possibly be offended, unless you harbor some inner prejudice which precludes you from accepting the simple personal choices of others.

Guns and Boobs

I'm sorry, but this is really one fucked-up country. I don't like to use expletives, but this issue requires it. An 18 year-old girl in Keene, New Hampshire, topless with a handgun holstered to her hip, was arrested for indecent exposure during a protest with other armed people affiliated with the Free State Project.

In an online video of Nicosia’s protest and arrest, she explains why she decided to go topless in public.

“I chose to do it because this is one of the most important issues to me is equality … men can walk down the street … and, you know, not get harassed at all but yet somehow this is dirty,” she says.

New Hampshire's state motto is "Live free or die". It's absolutely astounding that New Hampshire does not require residents to have permits on openly carried firearms, but the mere act of baring a breast can land a woman in jail. This is the heart of the topfree movement, it's not about getting women to take off their tops, it's not about immature males drooling over naked breasts, it's about the decriminalization of the femalel breast, and that if men have the right to take off their shirts, then a woman should have the same right. Arresting women for exposing nipples is misogynistic, irrational, cruel, unnecessary, and just plain stupid.

New Hampshire Courtroom Legal Opposition Group
Cassidy Nicosia's Twitter Account
Cassidy Nicosia's MySpace Account

Photos from GoTopless.org Event in Columbus, Ohio, 8/23/09

British Naturism Seeks Equality Protection Under the Law

In a bold and potentially historic move, British Naturism has submitted a claim to the Government Equalities Office which contends that "devotees of skinny dipping and nudist campsites suffer prejudice equivalent to that experienced by gays, ethnic minorities and the elderly."

It is urging the government and other authorities to make “affirmative statements” in favour of naturism and combat the financial penalties endured by those who pursue clothes-free leisure pursuits. Entry to naturist nights at council swimming pools is often twice as expensive as admission on other nights...British Naturism’s submission was one of those selected for display on the website of the equalities office alongside work by Stonewall, the gay rights group, Age Concern and the Runnymede Trust, which campaigns for racial equality

The National Equality Panel report will be published in November.

In the United States, people who oppose public lands to be set aside for nude sunbathing often make the comment that the beaches should be for "everybody", and that somehow the presence of nude people suddenly makes a beach restricted. In fact, this argument is prejudicial, and a society which denies equal access to tax-paying citizens who merely wish to enjoy nature without the burden of clothing is guilty of discrimination.

Nudists and naturists should pay close attention to the British Naturism action, which could prove to be a model for other initiatives around the world.

The complete equality bill which was submitted in June 2009 can be found here.

Topfreedom in Iowa?

The stunning news yesterday that the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional has taken most people by surprise, and further defined the debate as being about civil rights instead of morality. There is no appealing the decision, but opponents will likely seek an amendment to the constitution, requiring a public vote, guaranteeing that gay marriage in Iowa will be in effect at least until 2012.

“We are firmly convinced that the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” the court said in an opinion written by Justice Mark Cady. “The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.” The ruling appeared to dismiss the option of civil unions as a marriage alternative, finding that “a new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.”

Andrew Sullivan writes:

Once you have accepted sexual orientation as a fixed and profound part of someone's identity, and once civil marriage is not restricted to those with children, it is simply very, very hard to find a secular argument for denying critical civil rights under constitutions that guarantee formal equality. You can reach for Biblical injunctions, or try the logic of unintended consequences, or in the end invoke pure prejudice in a Burkean fashion. But even Burke understood that societies change and grow, social beliefs shift, our understanding of humanity deepens, and an intelligent conservatism adjusts.

Logic and intelligence have prevailed over religious based prejudice. Here is more from the opinion, and be sure to read it carefully:

We begin with the County's argument that the goal of the same-sex marriage ban is to ensure children will be raised only in the optimal milieu. In pursuit of this objective, the statutory exclusion of gay and lesbian people is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The civil marriage statute is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents--such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons--that are undeniably less than optimal parents. Such under-inclusion tends to demonstrate that the sexual-orientation-based classification is grounded in prejudice or "overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences" of gay and lesbian people, rather than having a substantial relationship to some important objective. See Virginia, 518 U.S. at 533, 116 S. Ct. at 2275, 135 L. Ed. 2d at 751 (rejecting use of overbroad generalizations to classify). If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people.

I asked Dr. Paul Rapoport of TERA if he thought this decision could have ramifications for topfreedom in Iowa. His reply: "The case law on topfreedom is quite different, hardly ever involving the Constitution's equality notions (14th amendment or other)."

Perhaps it's time to test the constitutionality of banning the exposure of women's breasts in public. While it is perfectly legal for a man to walk down the street exposing his nipples, no matter how large of small the breasts, a woman can be arrested for doing the same. One can make precisely the same arguments regarding women's topfreedom as were made for gay marriage in Iowa, that merely singling out women as targets for prosecution in the matter of nipple exposure is under-inclusive because it does not exclude men who have large breasts, and is over-inclusive because it punishes all women no matter what size the breast. The only logical conclusion is that women do not have equal civil topfreedom rights simply because they are women, so the law is clearly based on prejudice.

I say this with the full understanding that even if the law was changed tomorrow, most women are not going to throw off their tops and walk around downtown. The point is not to encourage people to walk around half-naked; the point is to stop making it a crime if they do. People who champion the cause, such as Linda Meyer and Liz Book, have put their own personal and legal safety on the line time and time again to change the law so that women who choose to be topfree are not branded as criminals or sex offenders.

The language of the Iowa court's decision gives hope that such breathtaking clarity and logic will begin to spread around the country, bringing us out of our long languishing unwillingness to abide by our basic tenet that all men and women are entitled to equal protection under the law, and that it's time to bury our prejudices when it comes to sex and sexuality.

Facebook Protest Grows

ABC News is reporting that 97,600 Facebook members have joined to protest the web site's censorship of breastfeeding photos.

One of them, Stephanie Muir of Ottawa, was new to Facebook when she stumbled across the group last year. Muir, a mother of five, does volunteer work related to public health and breast-feeding and said the issue is important to her.

"I think it's time we all get over this notion that women's breasts are dangerous and harmful for children to see," she said. So she organized a Facebook protest last weekend against the site's policies, which she believes are arbitrarily enforced and discriminate against women.

Muir said more than 11,000 people participated in the group's "virtual nurse-in" by swapping out their regular profile pictures on Facebook and uploading ones depicting breast-feeding.

Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked

2009: The Year of the Nipple

I am declaring 2009 to be The Year of the Nipple.

I don't have any legal authority to make this proclamation, so it's up to all of you to observe this special year in your own way.

I just think it's time for us to grow up as a society and accept the fact that men have nipples, and women have nipples, and no nipple in history has ever done anyone any harm.

Some people have extra nipples. Lily Allen has one and she showed in on the BBC.

Some people are born with no nipples. Others have their nipples removed.

Some people lose an entire breast or both breasts to cancer. After a mastectomy, some people choose to have their breasts reconstructed, including the nipples.

The nipple is a popular spot on the body for piercings, and tattoos. Strippers wear pasties over their nipples in order to comply with nudity laws and ordinances, and some wear them on the beach in order to be topfree and remain legal.

Jamie Ann Nipple changed her last name to Scott.

Funny things, these nipples.

In 2008 we found out that President-elect Barack Obama has nipples, as does Amy Winehouse, Michael Phelps and Angelina Jolie (see photos below).

2008 also saw the first National Go Topless Day, when dozens of women from Venice, California to New York City bared their breasts for topfree equality.

Hugh Hefner posed with twin playmates for a Christmas card, an image which was carried freely by many mainstream Internet sites, even though the girls were topless. I guess painted nipples are "family-friendly". Sports Illustrated also discovered that body-painted models are OK for the millions of high school boys who buy their annual swimsuit magazine, or surf their website.

And in 2008, we found out that cheerleader nipples are grounds for suspension.

But the most important story, which is ongoing, is the strong response to Facebook's recent decision to ban all photos of breastfeeding. Time Magazine even covered the controversy, saying, "We're all for breasts — the more cleavage the better. But the second a nipple is visible or we are reminded of nipples by the sight of a baby attached to one, all hell breaks loose."

The Topfree Equal Rights Association is providing a page for all the banned photos, and is inviting people of all ages to come and see with a non-disclaimer: "Many sites would carry a warning: Keep away if you're under 18! NSFW! We don't believe in that. Women's breasts in photos like these bother no one except those who have unfortunately been trained to be embarrassed by them or to control them when they have no right to."

Ultimately the issue is about control. The recent failed attempt to ban topless sunbathing by women on Australian beaches was best illustrated by this jaw-dropping quote by Labour MP Paul Gibson: ""If you're on the beach do you want somebody with big knockers next to you when you're there with the kids?"

Emily Maguire responds vehemently to the issue.

The tiresome myth that women are not as visually aroused as men is used to justify everything from sexual assault to double standards about public toplessness, and it's time to kill it dead...If the kids ask awkward questions like, oh, "What are those?" You say, "Nipples, we've all got them. Cool, huh?" Then you stop being a creepy perve and concentrate on the sandcastles and surf.

So this is why I am declaring 2009 to be The Year of the Nipple. It's time to stop this nonsense of turning women into criminals and sex offenders for merely showing a nipple in public, a right which is freely embraced by men, who in turn punish women for wanting the same right.

And let's cut out the "cultural" argument. This is an equal rights issue. If suddenly it was universally declared that women have the same topfree rights as men, society is not going to see millions of women walking around with their shirts off. That's the cultural aspect of the issue, which continually changes over time. Swimsuits have evolved from body covering woolies to the skimpy bikini, not from laws, but from culture. Hemlines have risen and fallen, all without one law or public ordinance. Government needs to get out of the business of legislating fashion.

TERA states this principle very clearly.

Our basic claim is that women deserve equal rights. We do not suggest that women or men should go about with bare breasts. That is every individual's decision. We do believe that since men may choose to do so in many situations, women must also be able to at least in the same situations. Without penalty of any kind.

As Liz Book says, "In stone they are considered art, in flesh they are criminal." Free the female nipple now.

Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked

Nipple Equality

I believe that the current generation of teens will be responsible for ending topfree inequality in America, and a case brewing in Michigan could be a spark to ignite the change.

The attorney for a 14 year-old girl who took a topless photo of herself and was subsequently suspended from school is arguing that the discipline was sex discrimination since male students would not have been punished for doing the same thing. But there is much disagreement with the attorney's contention.

"It is not sex discrimination," said Anita Allen (professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School), who specializes in privacy and sex discrimination issues. "It is considered indecent for a woman to appear in public undressed. ... Courts have upheld those laws, even though they obviously don't apply to men."How does the law justify the difference in treatment? "Three thousand years of Western culture," Allen said.

I really despise this sort of argument which justifies current injustice by invoking history. After all, it was also Western culture which mounted the Crusades, burned women as witches, enslaved an entire race of people, tried to exterminate the Jews, etc. History is the means by which we learn NOT to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Paul Rapoport of TERA has weighed in on the case.

"The girl did nothing wrong. She should be left alone -- it's her decision," Rapoport said. "The body is nothing to be ashamed of. I think everybody needs to calm down and shrug it off...The American obsession with female breasts is just boiling over."

But the real culprit here is the female nipple. Americans seem to have little problem with women showing plenty of décolletage, but it's when that pesky nipple makes an appearance that seems to set the world on fire. The Bare Oaks blogger hits the nail on the head.

Even the definition of breasts is problematic. You can't differentiate between men and women by breast size. Some men have larger breasts than some women. Trying to define where the breast starts and ends is almost impossible. Where is the edge of the breast?

So we are generally left with legal definitions that only refer to the nipple and areola. That means that breasts are not bare if pasties cover the nipple and areola area. Clearly, society is now telling us that the only part of concern is the nipple and areola area on a woman's body.

It really is a form of mass hysteria arising from moral panic. Where else but in America could the case of Janet Jackson's fleeting nipple exposure on network television reach the highest court in the land? It really is madness.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any female nipple, or the sight of one, has ever harmed anybody, either physically or psychologically. Americans still cling to an old Puritanical belief that the exposure of the female breast is somehow immoral.

It's inevitable that someday we will wake up as a country and stop criminalizing women for exposing their nipples, no matter what age. Eventually a court will have to come down on the side of equal rights under the law instead of using "history" as a lame excuse for sexual discrimination. If women can die for their country, just like men, then they should be able to sunbathe topfree, just like men.

Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked