[Facepalm] Rep. Rayne Brown Introduces Bill Criminalizing Nipple Exposure

[Infinity Biscuit]

I really wonder how much of this is the effect of the religious right and how much of it results from the plain old fashioned male urge to make women chattels.  Either way, it is an epidemic disease in the US and I fear our own government leans in the same direction.

Well there's a pretty symbiotic relationship between the two, so it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Conservative religion in the US is rife with patriarchy and it both lends itself as a tool to enforce patriarchy and uses it as an allure to strengthen itself. Not to say that misogyny is just in the domain of conservative religion (MRAism seems to correlate with open atheism), but since they're conservative Republicans, I doubt secularism is something they care for.

[Marney]

i just dont get it ... i mean gore,blood and violence its okay but if you show breasts on TV its like " OMG its the Apocalypse ...!!!" 
WTF?! 

[Danee]

I saw this on a tumblr feed this morning with this comment:


The only difference is a little bit of fat, but it’s made out to be a huge deal

[Dan]

Well there's a pretty symbiotic relationship between the two, so it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Conservative religion in the US is rife with patriarchy and it both lends itself as a tool to enforce patriarchy and uses it as an allure to strengthen itself. Not to say that misogyny is just in the domain of conservative religion (MRAism seems to correlate with open atheism), but since they're conservative Republicans, I doubt secularism is something they care for.

I think the likeliest explanation is that the bill's sponsor feels bad about his sexuality, struggles a lot to suppress it, assumes it the's the same for everyone, and tries to ban everything that gives him a boner.

Same with people talking about resisting to the "temptation of the sin of homosexuality". I'm straight and am not tempted by homosexuality. If you aren't honest about what you feel and how, you come up with that kind of unhealthy suggestion.

It's not about making women chattel, it's about this guy's misguided, unhealthy selfish needs.

[Danee]

Here are some rather supportive editorials on the issue (or, non-issue). 


http://www.mtairynews.com/view/full_story/21795942/article-Cases-involving-bare-breasts-deserve-close-look?instance=popular


http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130223/NEWS/302230020/Blake-Nipple-bill-real-offense?nclick_check=1

[Link]

I've come to notice, that there are those in society who act hypocritically without any awareness of this. They tend to favor shrinking the size and amount of government, but then go ahead and suggest something as intrusive as this. This is allowing government to directly dictate how one can/cannot live their own life. This representative's voting history seems to suggest he follows the "smaller government" ideology, so he honestly needs to follow through and see the err of his proposal. Biology aside, this is just blatantly hypocritical.

[jsw8671]

I, along with most people capable of rational thought will never understand how a nipple could possibly hurt anyone.  I'm often ashamed of being an American because of things like this... A whole country who bases laws on moral judgements dictated by a bunch of 2000 year old laws set forth by violent desert nomads who despised women and every other ethnic group... Good going America... You're so progressive, free and inclusive!

[mrj001]

Well, First:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4

But, though I don't agree with not allowing women not to go topless when men can.  I can sort of see why they can't.  It's the same reason why women in Canada weren't allowed to go topless in Canada for so long.  It's because the female nipple though not much different than the male nipple in appearance is far more sensitive. In fact I have known girls who can achieve orgasm simply by stimulating their nipples.  Not so much for guys. 

So because female nipples are almost as much of a source of arousal as genitals, they were not allowed to be shown in public, and still aren't in less civilized parts of the world.

However as a nudist I feel that anyone should be allowed to wear as little clothing whenever or wherever they want.  But then I can sort of understand why we aren't.

[Bobbert]

But, though I don't agree with not allowing women not to go topless when men can.  I can sort of see why they can't.  It's the same reason why women in Canada weren't allowed to go topless in Canada for so long.  It's because the female nipple though not much different than the male nipple in appearance is far more sensitive. In fact I have known girls who can achieve orgasm simply by stimulating their nipples.  Not so much for guys. 

So because female nipples are almost as much of a source of arousal as genitals, they were not allowed to be shown in public, and still aren't in less civilized parts of the world.

I think you could chalk it up just as easily to some misplaced notion to bind any part that can jiggle or bounce much.  Or, people don't want to accept that humans are mammals with organs that can release wet stuff.

[Infinity Biscuit]

The effects stimulation would have on the women is almost certainly an insignificant part of the reason behind the double standard compared to the effect seeing them has on men. Historically and around the world, the cultures which consider female chest exposure indecent overlap pretty heavily with those which sexualise the female chest.

[Dan]

But, though I don't agree with not allowing women not to go topless when men can.  I can sort of see why they can't.  It's the same reason why women in Canada weren't allowed to go topless in Canada for so long.

I disagree. The reason is that for the law to change, you need someone to break it. Then you need that person to plead non-guilty and defend the action in a court of law. Then you need the judge to agree with with the reasoning on constitutional grounds.

Of course, the ruling is only truly valid in a single province due to the Notwithstanding Clause.

[jsw8671]

I felt that this was approriate.

[nomadicnudist]

"The proposed legislation, House Bill 34, would make it a Class H felony to expose "external organs of sex and of excretion, including the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast.""

So a woman who has had a double-mastectomy and no reconstructive plastic surgery would be allowed to go topless, correct?

And where does this put trans-gender people? 

[Waytwofast]

A felony? Boobs are criminalized like armed robbery? What the f'ck?
However, the bill number being 34 is probably unintentional humor in this situation.

As the max. penalty is 6 months to 30 days this would be a misdemeanor probably "Indecent Exposure" as it is in most states...

There is laws like this all over the country, except maybe NYC, maybe they will be repealed or laxed, but as San Fran is showing up they're tightening down, so who knows???

[twiggie]

I think, perhaps, the most ridiculous thing about banning topless females is that in times long passed (i.e. 1800's and prior) it was not at all uncommon for women working in fields to work topless. It wasn't until the prudish Victorian era spread across the globe that such was put to an end, we men are such weak creatures that the mere sight of an ankle, elbow, wrist, or a bare breast, that we should revert to some primal instinct and be unable to control ourselves.