https://kdvr.com/2019/09/05/fort-collins-agrees-to-remove-topless-ban-from-public-code/
Colorado city officials have removed a topless ban from city law that inspired a Free the Nipple lawsuit.
The Coloradoan reported that Fort Collins City Council agreed Tuesday to remove language in the public nudity code that barred women and girls over age 10 from exposing their breasts in public.
City officials say the ban is expected to be removed Sept. 17.
Officials say a district court judge and a federal appeals court have ruled against the policy in the past two years.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Fort Collins, Colorado "Frees the Nipple"
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 75 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @01:43AM (9 children)
Until you realize it's ugly fat-ass feminists that are going to take advantage of this, not the hotties you're thinking of.
(Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 21 2019, @01:44AM (3 children)
Way to fuck up the fantasizing, ass.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @01:56AM (2 children)
What's the big deal, it will be just like this, but everyday--
https://madison.com/video/featured/world-naked-bike-ride/video_e4f61b90-a322-5368-9489-a98d91f52f15.html [madison.com]
Maybe a little more sunburn up at Colorado altitudes...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:03AM (1 child)
Actually, I picture it kind of evolving into a metropolitan Scandinavia kind of scene with topless sunbathing in the parks at lunchtime in the summer - not everywhere, not all the time, but also not scandalous or even remarkable when it does happen.
Fort Collins, only 40 years behind Copenhagen and Amsterdam, not bad for an upstart colony full of puritan prudes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by captain normal on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:12AM
I guess the AC above has never been around Boulder, Colorado in the summer. Also seems the Colorado City folks are about 45 years behind places around central California places like San Francisco, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, Monterey Country, etc.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 21 2019, @01:59AM (2 children)
The nude beaches in Florida are mostly disappointing... but not entirely.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:26AM (1 child)
So are the ones in Alaska
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:22AM
For now. They'll warm out after a while, tho.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RamiK on Saturday September 21 2019, @12:30PM
Actually if miniskirts and pushups are any indication, it's mostly going to be a lot of poor high-school girls competing for status in the only way they can without the money for pretty things: Dressing scantly.
To put it in laymen terms, since bras and tight shirts were already dirt cheap, they weren't a "barrier of entry". So, the loosening of "market regulations" is going to benefit young and naturally symmetric women and those with enough money for a cosmetic surgery while hurting the ability of older and/or poorer women to compete over status and men.
compiling...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Common Joe on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:45PM
Sorry to shower on the parade of comments in this thread. Actually, no I'm not. We should be celebrating the win-win here not grousing about how bad most women look. Laws that require women to cover up have been a blatant and obvious discrimination against women, so this is a win. And if women want to undress, then that's a win for anyone (guy or gal) who wants to enjoy what they are offering. If you guys can't appreciate bodies that didn't just turn eighteen or aren't perfectly symmetrical or aren't under 100 pounds or are too hairy or have moles in the wrong spot, then you don't know how to appreciate women. I find most women (and guys) beautiful -- not just what hollywood thinks I should enjoy.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:24AM (18 children)
Waitaminute... did the previous statute allow girls 10 and under to go topless? All this news about exploitation of minors, child prostitution, and the like, and they allowed that??
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:31AM (1 child)
Apparently even idiocy has its limits. Just don't tell the idiots I said that or they'll double down.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:47AM
Let them do it. It will blow their brains just as "Islam is right about women" will do. God be with you.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by captain normal on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:18AM (7 children)
If you are turned o by pre-pubescent girls you you have a big problem and need to get professional help immediately.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 5, Touché) by ilPapa on Saturday September 21 2019, @04:47AM (5 children)
Or, you need to run for congress as a Republican.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Captival on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:46AM (3 children)
Meanwhile back in reality, recently arrested Democrat major donor Ed Buck [washingtonpost.com] has personally killed more gay black men than the entire KKK combined. Luckily Epstein "killed himself" before he could spill the beans on how many times Bill Clinton visited Lolita Island. Between Epstein, Bill, Weinstein, Buck and Anthony Weiner, does Hillary know a single male that isn't a convicted pervert?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:53AM
workin links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Buck [wikipedia.org]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/us/ed-buck-west-hollywood.html [nytimes.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/ed-buck-charged-gemmel-moore.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:42AM (1 child)
You know that Trump was closer to Epstein than Bill Clinton was, right? Trump's whole 'We need to investigate this immediately!' shtick was nothing but a distraction. I'd bet that Trump and Clinton are both rapists. They are wretched human beings, in any case.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:42PM
You'll need citations for that. How many times did Trump visit pedo island? How many times did Clinton visit? As far as I know, Trump never, but Clinton dozens of times. Seriously, though. Citations needed for your assertion to stand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:39PM
Is Creepy Joe an R?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Common Joe on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:03PM
I'm not sure why you're rated so highly insightful. (Rated 4 at the time I read this.) I did not take grandparent's comment to mean that he's turned on by such stuff. He was highlighting the obvious absurdity of the laws and public reactions. And it is absurd. It's not legal for a woman to be topless, but it's legal for a girl to be topless despite the strong legal and public backlash that results every time a parent post nude photograph of their two month old in the bathtub. And you know what's most absurd? How warped our culture is to always be thinking of any kind of nudity -- especially nude children -- in sexual ways. Go watch the the 1978 version of Superman. I'm surprised that movie hasn't been banned. This idea alone should speak volumes about how awful our culture currently is.
And while we're on the subject: seeking professional help for his kind of stuff will get you shunned and shamed. With all the data collection and data leaks that is occurring, it's almost a guarantee. Find help at your own risk. Once that news is public, it impacts you forever professionally and personally. Your life will never recover.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @04:22AM (7 children)
For as long as I remember, this was not to uncommon in a lot of places, although 10 is pushing. You'd certainly see 5 or 5 year olds of both genders with no tops all the time when I was a kid in the 70s. Their chests look the same at that age. Ah well, simpler times, yada, yada. We rode with no seatbelts and the moms were smoking in the car too. Nobody thought twice about any of that stuff, now they do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:26AM (6 children)
I'm not from US culture. Would putting a young girl in a topless bathing suit constitute a sex crime, or is it just not culturally acceptable?
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:14AM (1 child)
Until they start getting to boobs age, most folks and laws don't care. Culturally, most parents tend to start buying them boob-covering swimsuits as soon as they start buying them swimsuits but they don't get bent out of shape too badly if they randomly run around in their underwear until about ten or so.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @12:53PM
Thanks!
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:07PM
It may not be technically a crime, but the police can investigate and take your children away for a long time until things are sorted out in court. That can take many, many months. Also, once your name is smeared with even a hint of a sex scandal against kids, your life will be ruined.
So, it's simply not culturally acceptable in the worst possible way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:32PM (2 children)
Things have changed significantly over the years. When I was a child, no one cared if a child was topless.
In the early 1990s I was visiting my brother and took photos of him, his wife and their two young (4 and 2 years old or so at the time).
I didn't notice it (which says a lot about attitudes back then), but the younger one wasn't wearing his diaper. This is before cell phone cameras, so I took the roll of film to be developed and printed.
When I got my prints, I was looking through them with my brother and his wife and we noticed that the younger one wasn't wearing pants. We laughed. "Look! isn't wearing pants! Ha Ha!" I still have the prints from that roll of film somewhere.
These days, I would likely be arrested for that. It's stupidity. That's a good word for US culture. The way we do things in the US is as follows: If there's an issue, look at all the angles, consider all the alternatives, then pick the one with the worst outcomes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:32PM (1 child)
that's because our "justice system" is predatory glorified slave catchers and most "Americans" are brain washed. bootlicking, wanna-be authoritarian, whores.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @07:03PM
Don't hold back, friend. Tell us how you really feel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:53AM
First of all, who's "The Hippie"?
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:30AM
Five years ago, a woman was jailed on a Fat Tuesday celebration in Seattle's pioneer square for exposing her breasts, on a city statute from the 1880's. Reports are there were more than a few (including her two companions wearing lots of beaded necklaces of course) doing the same thing!
Oh yeah, the arresting officers were on horseback!
She was freed after a few days.
Seattle, it's time to go topless!
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:34AM (25 children)
Regardless of your gender.
If it's legal for men to go topless, it's discriminatory for forbid women to do so.
I don't get this whole "it's bad to be nude" thing. No, I'm not a nudist/naturist, but we all have the same stuff under our clothes.
The only rationale I can see in forbidding *women* to go topless is that men don't feel they can keep themselves from raping if they're around women, especially if they have few or no clothes on.
And, of course, it's the woman's fault right? She should never have been _______ and she wouldn't have attracted that kind of attention. Bullshit. Don't tell women what (not) to wear. Tell men to stop *forcing* themselves on others.
Non-consent is the problem, not (lack of) clothes.
Where do we see that a lot? In Arab countries that treat women as objects and property.
tl;dr: It's just skin, folks. Nothing we all haven't seen all our lives looking in the mirror.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:53AM (1 child)
Anti-nudity laws should be struck down as unconstitutional anyway, since what clothes you do or don't wear is a form of expression.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:03AM
It's also a form of insulation in these here parts!
(Score: 0, Disagree) by DrkShadow on Saturday September 21 2019, @09:01AM (12 children)
You're obviously female, and you're obviously trolling.
It's well accepted that the breasts of female humans (specifically) remain engorged at all times in an effort to emulate the buttocks and appear sexually appealing. As Women, not so much men, have defined Everything Sexual Is Bad, then it would seem that women have defined the ends of breasts to be bad, and so breasts have been restricted.
Evolutionarily, breasts on humans (the only(?) mammal with continually engorged breasts) developed for sexual appeal, and so are purely sexual in nature. (They have other uses, but those uses aren't related to their engorged-ness.) Women define anything related to sex as bad (It's not sexual, it's art! Nudity isn't sex!), and so women implicitly define breasts as bad.
Women are their own worst enemies.
and there you go, talking about how "men can't stop themselves from raping." Of course, that is of course the only explanation, as generated by a psychic and parroted by the unquestioning followers.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:21PM (9 children)
Umm... no. You were marked with a disagree, but I didn't see a reason, so I'll write one up.
By your logic, the smaller a woman's breast is, the less sexually attractive it is. A lot of guys don't believe that. It's not about how big breasts are. Some guys like them smaller. Some like 'em larger.
And if you go to a nude beach, don't go looking to get laid. You'll be arrested. Breasts aren't viewed as sexual objects there. In fact, pubic hair, labia, and penises are not viewed sexually on a nude beach.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @04:32PM (8 children)
Um, yes? If you disagree with that I would assume you have had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears screaming "La La La La" for your entire life. Do you think the breast augmentation industry is there just for the lulz? Have you never seen a single porn movie (a media exclusively about sexual contact) and the women who perform in them? Any small chested actress invariably bulks up as soon as she gets her first paycheck. Ever been around a woman who expresses a hatred for another whose only stand out characteristic is large boobs? You can't deny it unless you are willfully ignoring the obvious.
And a lot of guys are gay. Most men prefer a woman who does not exhibit the body characteristics of a man or a young boy. A lot more are willing to settle but given a choice will nearly invariably choose the bigger bra size. It may not be politically correct, but it's true.
One of my buddies used to claim he preferred small boobs when he was married to a woman with small boobs. You should see the jugs on his current wife. Now he thinks big boobs are the best. It's obvious his preference is the ones he can access at the time you ask.
A tiny minority.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @04:58PM (4 children)
As a man, I find it disgusting that your (and the AC to whom you replied) focus is *only* on what men find desirable.
This isn't about sex or desire. This is about equality. Some random woman on the street doesn't care whether you like big breasts or small ones.
As for the porn industry, that's an odd place to get your ideas about what women think and want. The vast majority of porn watchers are *men*. As such, much of porn is tailored to what *men* may find sexually arousing.
I've got a flash for you: Unless you're *involved* with a woman, she doesn't give a rat's ass what you think about bodies or sex.
And the fact that as you're talking about women in this discussion, it's only in terms of their sexual desirability *to you or other men*, says a lot more about your attitudes than it does about women. It's a pretty adolescent, IMHO.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:37PM (3 children)
Spotted the pink hair activist.
Like it or not sweetie, women accentuate their boobs to attract men because it works. Otherwise push up bras, deep neck attire, and underboob would not be a thing. Feel free to rant and wallow in your disgust, but strip clubs, Hooters, Twin Peaks and topless baristas are real.
Way to make my point for me without even being aware of the irony.
That's not been my experience. Most of the women I know or have ever met are far more cognizant of others' opinions of their bodies than men ever are. Most of the don't care women I've seen are well outside competing in the market or else perpetually offended by anything sexual as was mentioned by someone else earlier in the comments.
That's the whole topic of this particular thread: the reasons for banning (or not) behavior based upon the potential for unwanted "sexual desirability *to me or other men*". Personally, I would never complain to cops for any woman showing their boobs, but lets not pretend that men do not like to look at them. There is a shitload of industries besides porn that take advantage of that very fact.
Enjoy your disgust, but chew on this. For every one of you, there are tens of other women who would gladly take advantage of their looks to get advantages in life. Do you think Melania was attracted to Donald's dad bod? Do you think Hilaria just can't get enough of Alec Baldwin's wonderful personality? Every gorgeous woman knows if they can snare a rich dude they are one paternity suit away from a 20 year career of not working.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:10PM (2 children)
AC you replied to here. Read this [soylentnews.org].
Your disdain for women makes me sad. Your dismissal of half the human race disgusts me.
If believing that women have value other than as sexual objects, and deserve the same legal rights as men makes me a "pink-haired" activist, then so be it.
I got your pink hair right here, jackass!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @07:48PM (1 child)
Sure you are.
I never claimed women deserved less rights. I actually agree with the ruling. I never asked for less rights. And I do believe that women have "value other than as sexual objects" too. I love my daughter and step-daughter dearly. I advise them all the time to stay far away from any relationship that might cause them dependence financially or otherwise. And all of this has absolutley jack shit to do with my original posting in this thread. You know, the one you ran off the rails on, to wit, my agreement with this:
Nowhere did I say that the entirety of a woman's worth is her value as a sex object, just that many (who can) exploit their attractiveness to their own advantage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @08:36PM
If being born in 1966, having a 'Y' chromosome in all my cells, as well as a functional penis and testicles doesn't make me "a man in my 50s," then what does?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:38PM (2 children)
i find many different breast characteristics attractive. I find it suspicious when a man can't recognize beauty in many different womens' physical (and other) characteristics. smacks of trying too hard or mentally fucked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:42PM
Agreed. I'm on board with the entire flat to gigantic spectrum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @08:41PM
I've been amazed over the years at who I've been attracted to. They run the gamut: short, tall, thin, curvy, large breasts, small breasts, blonde, brunette, redhead, loud, quiet, etc.
The only thing that brings them all together is that I was attracted enough to them to attempt (and in many cases, succeed) to get to know them better and share some part of my life with them.
That's not to say that some people have specific physical characteristics that attract them more than others, but the idea that breast size (or any other specific characteristic) is universal as a measure of attractiveness is ridiculous in the extreme.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @04:47PM
BZZT! Wrong on both counts. Like many SN users, I'm a male in my 50s.
And am absolutely not trolling. Unless believing that discrimination is wrong equals trolling. Allowing men to be topless and not women is discriminatory. That's not a male/female issue, that's an equality issue.
My comparison to Arab societies was one of degree. Women are often required to be covered from head to toe in places like Saudi Arabia. And the arguments in those places are similar to yours: "Women's bodies are sexual and always so. As such, they must be hidden or women will corrupt men, because women are inherently lustful, scheming and bad and, as such, must be controlled."
This is paralleled here in discriminatory laws about clothing. It's also paralleled in our culture, sexualizing female bodies in the media, making claims that women must not be allowed control over their own bodies (e.g. contraception, family planning, etc.), and your ridiculous claim that women think sex is bad, is moronic on its face.
Women love sex just as much (and often more) as men do. What they don't love is folks like you treating them as sexual objects, instead of sentient beings with all the same rights as men.
Please explain to me why women shouldn't have exactly the same legal rights as men.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @08:20PM
And, by the general tone of your post, you're obviously misogynistic, and obviously have an ax to grind with at least some women in your life. How does it feel to be on the other end of the stereotype cattle prod ?
Yeah, a hundred thousand freaking years ago. Grow the fuck up, caveman.
Who cares if breasts are made to be sexually attractive or not ? Do you think these tiny bikinis, skin-hugging dresses or fishnet tops aren't meant to be sexually attractive ? And yet are any of these illegal ? Claiming that it's the woman's responsibility to not incite sexual arrousal in men "for their own safety" is the same kind of retarded argument being made in shithole middle-eastern countries to keep women indoors unless accompanied by a man and to force them to wear hijabs.
Women have been going topless on european beaches for decades. And men and women have been going topless or even fully nude in natural settings, saunas, and even city parks in some countries for just as long and even longer. Have generations of children been traumatised ? Have any of those countries turned into a rape-fest ? In fact, the levels of sexual assault in these countries are way lower than in those shitholes were women's clothes and whereabouts are heavily controlled by law.
And I don't know about the OP, but in my case, I'm a man. A grown man.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Saturday September 21 2019, @09:26AM (8 children)
You have obviously not seen many naked men/women/porn. One reason people wear clothes, even primitive people in hot countries, is that they are not all the same and therefore many feel inferior if fully exposed, rightly or wrongly. Leaving the head and hands (or at least the eyes) is a bit unavoidable though.
For example I don't want to see my boss' dick or even his bare torso, nor him mine, even if I look the better. Nor do I want to see his secretary's tits, at least not in the office environment - too distracting.
.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:17PM (5 children)
I am not sure you're right on the reasons for wearing clothes even in hot climates. There is a protective function to clothing after all.
Also I am sure seeing someone naked would be a lot less distracting if it was just normal.
Not that I am in favour of running around all naked, but I am not convinced by many of the arguments.
And I seem to remember that there were studies that suggested since it has been become less acceptable for men to walk around without a shirt there are actually more people getting sick during heat waves.
So there is at the very least one good reason to question whether it is good for society to be this worried about nakedness.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:53PM (4 children)
Citation needed. Absorbent cotton T-shirts will keep you cooler than exposed flesh, by reason that sweat runs off of exposed flesh. More - equatorial people have long known that clothing protects from the sun. You run around naked or near naked in the hot summer sun, letting the sweat run off of you in rivulets, and allowing the sun to burn you, then get back to me. I'll stay covered up with a Stetson (or some such straw hat) and a T, and my year 'round denim jeans and Wolvering boots. And, if I don't have to be out in the sun, I'll stay under a shade tree or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @07:00PM (1 child)
Yeah, I don't think I'll manage to find the article, and I will admit I may have mis-remembered.
For what it's worth, I remember the article to be about Sweden.
Which means "hot" being maybe 30 degrees C, people might not have clothes quite suitable (linen shirts have become quite hard to find for example) and high likelihood of some wind at least. I don't have any actual data on cooling effect of shirt vs. not, but there definitely is a climate range (guess from experience: 25-32 degrees, shade, very light breeze) where no shirt definitely FEELS a lot better at least.
I was stupid enough to go snorkeling without T-shirt in Australia once, and got the sunburn I ought to have anticipated, so I am quite aware that running around naked can be really stupid in some areas of the world.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 21 2019, @07:32PM
I can get onboard with THAT! Yeah, if you are careful, and get past those first couple weeks of sunburn season, it would feel good to run around near nekkid. Or, completely nekkid, for that matter.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:46PM (1 child)
Better reason: Melanoma.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:32AM
Who's that? Trump's wife or his daughter?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Common Joe on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:23PM
That's culturally ingrained whether something like that is distracting or not. Not all cultures care about that kind of thing. Our goal should be to be a bit more enlightened and not mind the petty stuff like this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:07PM
AC you replied to here. I've seen plenty of naked people and watched plenty of porn. While there is variation in people, most of us fit into the middle of the range in those sorts of measurements.
I don't necessarily want to see people naked all the time, which is why I'm not a nudist/naturist. You see how that works?
But we do all have the same stuff. There's skin, there's breasts (we don't call them that on men, but they are there), there are penises and testicles and vaginas and buttocks. And there are (gasp!) navels too. So yes, it's all the same stuff. And no one is forcing you to go naked.
The point of all this is not that we should all be naked all the time. The point is that the law discussed in TFA means that women in Fort Collins, CO are no longer being discriminated against. And less discrimination and more equality is A Good Thing™
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:05PM
Males used to lose themseoves over a little ankle. Now we're arguing over breasts. If breasts are commonly seen, they will lose a lot of their sexual status. Most sexual arosual is in the mind and once the exotic nature of something becomes common place, it becomes just that: normal and thus unintereesting. Don't believe me? Then how did so many people in China start creaming their pants over crushed and infected feet where as no where else in the world did the same? Sexual excitment is mainly cultural and only takes a generation to change.
The reason it's legal to prevent females from being topless is because the nipple is concsidered a sexual 'organ' in females but not in males. Sounds stupid to me, but that's their argument. It's illegal to expose your sexual organs in public.
Putting yourself in risky situations is your fault. Sure the world should be perfect, but it's not and pretending it is means you'll find out much faster than most people. You'd let your kids run around in the street because cars are supposed to stop for them right? That's the same as walking around naked in a dangrious area of town or getting passed out drunk at a party. There's just some things you shouldn't do. Of course the agressor has most of the fault, but you share in some of it if a couple common sense things you refused to do would have avoided the issue completely. It's not your fault that the power went out during storm and your basement floods, but it is your fault for not having a battery-backup pump. You can whine all you want to the power company or the weather, but the only worth while thing you can do is get a better pump. So stop drinking enough to pass out.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Saturday September 21 2019, @08:13AM
In Colorado Springs they have legalized witch burning, outlawed abortion, and allowed superior officers in the Air Farce Jesus Force to exorcise Jewish, and other non-christian cadets, and basically cut the city budget to the point where the roads are impassible and the street lights do not work, because taxes are theft and Trump is the God-emperor.
I used to think the other branches mockery of the Chair Force was overblown, but after what has come down at the Air Force Academy [af.mil] at Colorado Springs, God's Flying Idiots [thedailybeast.com], I have started to think the abuse is understated. WWJB! (Who would Jesus Bomb?, Imago Dei, y'all!)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @08:49AM (1 child)
The __MUCH__ more interesting aspect of this is that it's a circuit court decision. The same circuit court oversees Utah, and so by this ruling it's now case law that genders shall not have differing laws on nudity in Utah.
That means that Because Fort Collins, it's now case law that women shall be allowed to go topless in Utah.
Women, legally topless in Utah.
Of all the things I never expected to see, that is very near the most unlikely. I rather suspect that Utah will shortly outlaw male toplessness in Utah. I expect that they will ignore this ruling and continue to arrest/charge any women who expose their tops in Utah. I very much expect that they will arrest and detain any such women, and if the women fight any such charges, then drop the charges quickly -- just so they can have gotten them out of public, topless.
Utah. .....
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @06:08PM
Utah can bring it up to the Supreme Court, hit them with a public disturbance charge, outlaw male toplessness, or do nothing and rely on social ostracization to do the job.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday September 21 2019, @12:54PM (4 children)
It has been legal for women to go topless in New York City for about twenty years now. Except for a couple of exhibitionists at the annual Mermaid Parade [coneyisland.com] or particularly militant members of Dykes on Bikes at the Village Halloween Parade (well, the way it used to be--they Disney-fied it once they started televising it), women do not walk around topless. It is a "right" they do not exercise.
As such, it seems more likely fighting for the right to go topless has little to do with actually wanting to walk around topless and much more to do with exercising political power. Using it to flout universal social mores must be a particularly gratifying example.
When you stop to think about it, those same forces must be reveling in their unprecedented power these days. For as much as they complain about Trump, they are dominating the political narrative and eviscerating every social verity that has sustained Western Civilization (and most other civilizations, too) for millennia. They have normalized homosexuality and made it a firing offense to say "there are only two genders." They have made being male or having white skin a real Mark of Cain. They have jettisoned all the achievements of the Enlightenment: science, free inquiry, freedom, democracy (they'd rather rig that to make sure the "correct" outcome is achieved). They have made real progress on banning the consumption of meat; have made progress on getting people to eat insects; and have fired the first shots in the bid to normalize cannibalism. Cherished cultural touchstones have been trashed. They've also begun normalizing bestiality and pedophilia.
So those women ought to go topless everywhere, all the time, as a badge of honor for what they have wrought. They've earned the power to stick their finger in everyone's eye, and should revel in it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @03:11PM (1 child)
When it became legal, the police were going around having women expose their breasts to men in the park and having her ask to see his penis. When he exposed himself, the police would jump out and arrest the guy. I think they all got off due to entrapment, but aren't completely sure. I'm sure their lives were destroyed.
Be careful what people ask of you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @05:19PM
I call bullshit. You can't provide *any* evidence for this.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday September 22 2019, @10:56PM (1 child)
I was with you for the first paragraph, ready to hit you with an Insightful mod.
Then the second half got kind of ... weird. I'm not entirely sure that removing gender-bias in our laws is a step toward cannibalism or bestiality.
So now I'm conflicted. How do you mod half of a post one way, and the other half another? It's not like you can order a half-n-half mod like you can a pizza. Perhaps "interesting" is the way to go.
FWIW, I completely agree that this is all about the right to be topless rather than any actual desire to do so. I highly doubt that Fort Collins will become inundated with naked boobs any time soon.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 23 2019, @12:19PM
That's fair.
It's not that allowing toplessness is a gateway to cannibalism or bestiality, but that it's an exercise in power to smash social norms. That's the point I was trying to make.
There are extremists who have seized control of the public discourse who are pushing the envelope as far as ever they can. They've been able to do it because the mainstream media has become desperate to stay afloat and reckon outrage porn is the way to do that. That in turn gives them the means to drive politicians to enshrine their hopes in law.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by lars on Saturday September 21 2019, @12:58PM (3 children)
Back in around 1997 or so a woman here in Ontario won a case that allowed women to go bare chested. Other than at a gay prie parade, I have only seen boobs onceon a street, someone changing clothes as they walked. I feel they would have anyway.
So, sorry texans, there wont be boobs everywhere suddenly just because the law has changed it does not mean that social norms have too.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @02:26PM
Of course given that, you could just as well ask: why did someone feel a need to make a law forbidding it?
Maybe that question might help the other poster ranting about how the people suing against it "must be reveling in their unprecedented power these days" to get some perspective.
While there certainly are people taking it too far, getting a nonsense and discriminatory law revoked is really not that. EVEN if it makes little difference in practice.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday September 21 2019, @08:19PM (1 child)
That Ontario case was about a demonstration pushing for the law to be changed to allow women to bare their breasts in public. And the woman involved had bared her breasts as part of the demonstration.
She was arrested and charged and convicted. But on appeal, the appeal court rules that in this case the bare breasts were part of protected free speech. It was, after all, done as part of a demonstration.
So normal baring of breasts was still unlawful. It became lawful only as part of protected free speech.
(Score: 2) by Codesmith on Monday September 23 2019, @02:48AM
I believe you are incorrect. The original conviction was overturned by the Appeal Court, and the Government of Ontario did not take the case further to the Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada#Ontario [wikipedia.org] covers the details.
Private property can be require clothing, as can Provincial Parks.
Pro utilitate hominum.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:01AM (4 children)
Why is it legal to expose some parts of the human anatomy in public, but other parts cannot be exposed?
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:31AM (3 children)
I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious or just having a little friendly fun with this question, but I'll reply.
Why are some some parts illegal to show? Because it's about power and dominance. There should be no good reason why nakedness should be completely banned.
With that said, there is a reason to cover our bottoms in many situations. Most people can't remain sanitary after a bathroom visit. Just about every guy leaks a little bit after urinating. Just about every woman has a similar problem. It's part of our anatomy. And as far as dropping a deuce, toilet paper doesn't get everything. I'd prefer not to sit in a fecal encrusted chair when watching a movie at a theater.
That doesn't mean nudity should be outlawed. It simply means the culture would need to change to accept certain things. Outside? Who cares. Inside? Use a towel or a washable cover.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Sunday September 22 2019, @07:07AM (2 children)
I am highly sanitary, use a bidet, and do not leak. Your objection seems to be that you are offended by exposed genitals. Fair enough. Others are offended by exposed breasts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24 2019, @07:26PM (1 child)
He said most people can't remain sanitary. I'm inclined to agree after seeing people washing their clothes in the laundromat with what looks like melted chocolate in their underwear.
He didn't say all. You might have exemplary hygiene.
(Score: 2) by snufu on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:08AM
People don't wash their hands and that is a much more hazardous vector than a bare bottom. If people wore gloves instead of pants, germ borne illness would plummet. So the hygiene argument is moot.
Where society draws the line on nudity is completely arbitrary and cultural.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ron on Sunday September 22 2019, @09:18AM
It's good to be old. You get to see a lot of history happen.
Way back in the 1960s and early 1970s, it was legal and common for women to bare their chests in Austin Texas. I remember the thrill of going to Barton Springs pool and Zilker Park and seeing topless female swimmers and sunbathers. (If you've never been to Barton Springs, the water is icy cold year round... Yep.)
Fast forward into the 1980s. Some kind of fervor, a brouhaha, a little too much publicity and deliberate challenges, and the law was changed in the name of "public safety." No more big beautiful bare boobies in public.
I've also lived in New York and rode the subway and walked the streets and visited the central park. No wonder women don't go topless there. Hell, as a young, not unattractive man I even felt vulnerable a few times. The last thing you want to do is advertise to someone who's on the edge already.
What's my big point in all this? Simple. If you want nice things, you have to take care of them and not abuse them or let anyone else abuse them. Otherwise, one way or another, you'll lose it. See, it's not only about the laws. It's also about the culture.
And be careful what you wish for. If more women walked around topless all the time, bare breasts would be about as thrilling to see as elbows and ankles -- both of which (as I've been told by the locals) are generally considered pretty damn erotic in those hijab wearing countries.