Molly Ashford
Johnston
English 1A
9 February 2007
Her Toplessness Is Illegal, But His Isn’t
With very few exceptions, it is common fact that by law in the United States, men are allowed to go shirtless in public and women are not. Recent debate however, has challenged the fairness of these laws. Many claim that the issue is too trivial and is distracting our attention from more important issues, such as abortions rights or the war in Iraq. They insist that there is nothing important to gain from changing the laws, and that nothing is suffered from leaving them as they are. Others counter by arguing that it is a question of principles lining up with policy, and that there are social consequences for leaving the laws as they stand. In fact, laws that prohibit women, but not men, from going shirtless in public are unfairly discriminatory.
Shirtlessness is not a trivial issue. It is inherently an issue of sexual discrimination, which is an important matter of principles. While we have numerous laws protecting against sexual discrimination in public and private spheres, we have not yet challenged the justness of decency laws. One might ask though, if it’s really discrimination. According to the Wikipedia article on sex discrimination, it is defined as “adverse action against another person, that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex.” So, by that definition, are women suffering adverse action because of laws regarding toplessness? Absolutely.
Shirtless women across the nation are continuously charged with indecent exposure for acts such as sunbathing, swimming or simply walking through town. Because indecent exposure is regulated on a state level, there is vast inconsistency as to what that entails and how it’s punished. Some laws are vague, such as those in Connecticut which define indecent exposure as “lewd exposure of the body with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of the person,” which has a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail and a $1000 fine. Others are more explicit, such as those in Louisiana which declare indecent exposure to be “exposure of the genitals, pubic hair, anus, vulva, or female breasts or nipples in any public place with the intent of arousing sexual desire or which appeals to prurient interest or is patently offensive,” which carries a sentence of 3 years jail time and a $2500 fine (“Indecent Exposure”). Despite these differences though, these laws are all aimed at discouraging lewd behavior in public, and require lewd intentions. Some states however, such as California, have ruled that activities such as sunbathing are not lewd and therefore do not constitute indecent exposure (“Window”). In other words, shirtless women are being unjustly charged for crimes they have not committed.
In one telling case in Moscow, Idaho, three women were arrested for indecent exposure for walking through town shirtless in 90 degree weather. Their accompanying male friends, who were also shirtless, were not arrested (“Topless”). The women took the case to court, with the defense that the law was vague and violated their 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. The judge ruled in their favor. But how do indecent exposure laws relate to the 14th Amendment? Under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, states may not make laws abridging a person’s rights, and must ensure equal protection for all. If women, but not men, are being charged with indecent exposure for equal actions, then they are not receiving equal protection. In the same way that equal work demands equal pay, so too should equal actions demand equal protection or conviction.
Another source of contention is the issue of public breast-feeding. Breast-feeding is an understandably inherent right of mothers, and by nature, cannot be regulated to a timed schedule. Most states are accommodating of this, and specifically separate breast-feeding from indecent exposure. However, even in states where is is allowed, women are still harassed for breast-feeding “indecently” or in other words, uncovered. In once case, a woman in Columbus, Ohio, breast-feeding her son at Lifestyle Family Fitness, was asked by the manager to stop or she would loose her privileges (“TERA”). In another case, a woman and her family were forced to leave a plane because she refused to stop nursing her daughter or cover up (“TERA”). While the airline insists that this is no their standard policy, it indicates the overwhelming ignorance surrounding breast-feeding rights. Denial of these rights are equally as discriminatory as those surrounding toplessness.
It is interesting to note that men did not have shirtless rights either until the 1930s, following the relase of It Happend One Night, which featured a scene of a shirtless Clark Gable. Men were arrested for being shirtless in public until finally judges recognized it as being an inhernt right (“Topless”, “TERA”). Interesting then that is is still not considered an inherent right for women. In sum, laws prohibiting women, but not men from going shirtless in public are unfairly discriminatory and thus unconstitutional, and it’s high time we change them to reflect the morals and principles of a country that above all else, values civic rights and personal freedom.
Works Cited
“Equal Protection Clause.” 7 Feb. 2007. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 10 Feb. 2007. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause>
“Indecent Exposure and Public Lewdness Statutes.” 2002. Nudist-Resorts.org. SUN Communications. 10 Feb. 2007. <http://www.nudist-resorts.org/statutes.htm>
“Sex Discrimination.” 2 Feb. 2007 Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 10 Feb. 2007. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_discrimination>
Shapiro, Natalie. “Topless in Idaho.” Slingshot. 11 Feb. 2007. <http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0064017>
“Topfree Equal Rights Association.” 29 Jan. 2007. TERA. 11 Feb. 2007 <http://www.tera.ca/>
“Window to the World.” 30 Jan. 2005. Deccan Herald. 11 Feb. 2007. <http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan302005/fp6.asp>