An Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled that free speech is not absolute, and since women's breasts are considered "erogenous zones", Lorien D. Bourne will not have her disorderly conduct conviction overturned.
Also, the government has no business defining "erogenous zones". The human body is loaded with erogenous zones, most of which are completely legal to expose in public, such as the mouth, the eyes, the ears, the nape of the neck, the legs, the feet, etc. One can argue that the most erogenous area of the human body is the lips, which women paint in order to accentuate specifically as a sexual attraction. Once the government gets into the business of controlling societal "norms" it threatens to become an American Taliban, or an Iranian police state, where officers regulate women's clothing through brutality, threats, and imprisonment.
It's just stunning to me that a woman sunbathing topfree in a park could be considered a threat to society, when there are so many greater and more serious issues facing us today. Not only is the media guilty of sexualizing the female breast, the government has now become its enabler, complicit in objectifying female anatomy for the pleasure of males.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
The 3-0 opinion said that while the “court does agree that there are occasions where shirtless males are offensive; however, we cannot ignore the firmly rooted societal differences between male and female anatomy”.This ruling is disturbing on many levels. The statement that shirtless males can sometimes be offensive is a giant step backwards for body acceptance in the United States. Does this mean that an obese man with large breasts can be singled out as being offensive? If someone complains about a shirtless man, will the police be under legal obligation to ask him to cover up?
“Rejecting the appellants’ equal protection arguments…..’We further note that the reason the female breast was explicitly enumerated as an ‘erogenous zone’ is the fact that female breasts are anatomically distinct and our society has viewed the public display of female breasts far more differently than male breasts. The female breast has traditionally been viewed as an erogenous zone. Because of the anatomical and societal differences, the government has an interest in preservation of the public decorum, decency and morals”.
Also, the government has no business defining "erogenous zones". The human body is loaded with erogenous zones, most of which are completely legal to expose in public, such as the mouth, the eyes, the ears, the nape of the neck, the legs, the feet, etc. One can argue that the most erogenous area of the human body is the lips, which women paint in order to accentuate specifically as a sexual attraction. Once the government gets into the business of controlling societal "norms" it threatens to become an American Taliban, or an Iranian police state, where officers regulate women's clothing through brutality, threats, and imprisonment.
It's just stunning to me that a woman sunbathing topfree in a park could be considered a threat to society, when there are so many greater and more serious issues facing us today. Not only is the media guilty of sexualizing the female breast, the government has now become its enabler, complicit in objectifying female anatomy for the pleasure of males.
Tags: nudism, naturism, nudist, nudists, naturist, naturists, nudity, nudes, bare, au naturel, nude, naked
2 comments:
This is outrageous, what freedoms do they plan to restrict next?
America you have my sincere condolences.
So, the court is saying that occasionally male breasts may be offensive (but never illegal) but female breasts are always offensive and illegal.
It's obvious that in this country women are still second class citizens and will never have full equality with men.
Post a Comment