Sunday, April 25, 2010

Andrea Simoneau Topfree in Maine

Simply because Andrea is exercising her right which is clearly supported by the law, people who oppose the exposure of her breasts in public are calling for a law to ban women from taking off their shirts. It's hard to even think of a similar example where someone is doing something perfectly legal and people start calling for a ban on that activity. It's clearly not rational, based on religious dogma and old social taboos, and not on the law or equal rights. If anything, the police and government officials should be protecting a woman's right to topfreedom. When the police say that their "hands are tied", this is not a ringing endorsement of the law, but rather a coded message that the legislators should act to prevent the public display of female breasts.

Our society is already burdened by too many laws and codes which restrict personal freedoms. To suggest that another law is needed to persecute women like Andrea Simoneau is over-reactive and completely unnecessary. Society has oppressed women for far too long, and sexualized their body parts to the point where they are sometimes more object than person.

Let's hope that Ms. Simoneau's march is peaceful and successful.


Rick said...

One thing we don't need is more laws against things. That seems to be the attitude in this country -- if someone does something that annoys you or you don't like, make it illegal.

Being offended is a personal choice as is acceptance. I find choosing acceptance is far less stressful and healthier.

Nicky said...

Heck, I support women's rights to go topless as much as men. If men can go topless and not get arrested, then women should as well. This is one area of equal rights that women should be fighting for because it's not fair that men don't get arrested for going topless, but women do and that's just so wrong and unjust. To think that everyone has equal rights in America, that to me means we don't have it at the moment.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to even think of a similar example where someone is doing something perfectly legal and people start calling for a ban on that activity.

How about carrying a firearm?

Nudiarist said...

There is some similarity between boobs and guns, but there is no question that the "right to bear arms" is Constitutionally protected. Last time I checked the Constitution does not impose any dress codes, so it would seem that any government effort to regulate clothing, or the lack thereof, would be unconstitutional, but nobody but body freedom advocates argue against nudity laws. Most people agree with the government forced clothing regulations.

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it's open to interpretation. I doubt that the Founding Fathers envisioned the day when automatic weapons would be used in public massacres. The idea was to keep the general populace prepared in the event of attack by Indians, animals, or the British. Given that logic, during the Cold War everyone should have owned their own nuclear weapon.

But the NRA is far more powerful in defending the 2nd Amendment than any nudist or naturist organizations are in defending the right to be nude. If only there had been an original Amendment stating the "right to bare bodies" we would not be having these nonsensical arguments today, but I don't doubt there would be regulations, as there are with firearms, as to where and when it's appropriate to exercise those rights.