Talk:Topfree equality

Contents

1 Title 2 Maine 3 Bare breasts in New York, etc. 4 Not NPOV 5 The term "Topfree" 6 the image 7 more on the photo and MPOV

Title

For one moment, I was expecting something to do with denotational semantics. -- The Anome

Maine

I added Maine to the list, since Maine law only defines genital exposure as indecent exposure. Here is an example(I found this on http://www.legalfreedom.com/topfree/, but I remember the incident): In 1998 a Maine woman who had been mowing her lawn without a shirt for three summers faced the threat of police action when a neighbor complained. However, Maine state law does not criminalize female breasts. When the neighbor put a law on the ballot to criminalize topfree women, town voters rejected it. Moreover, the citizens bought thousands of "Topfree Lawnmower's Assocation" t-shirts to show their support.

Also, two University of Maine students were aquited of indecent exposure charges after running throught the town of Orono, Maine fully nude: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_513839.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

In general, even though it is technically legal, women do not go topless at public beaches.

beaneg

Bare breasts in New York, etc.

In these places that have topfree equality by law, how common are bare breasts?--Patrick 06:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

that comment about females being able to go topless in NY is not true, i like there and they never do that. MaximusNukeage 22:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I live in NY too and know it is legal. Sometimes people do it at my town pool. The lifeguard policy is to persuade them not to if someone complains, but women are legally allowed to be topless. Timbo ( t a l k ) 03:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "I live there?" I know, it is hard to believe, but according to a court case in 1992, women who went on a topfree picnic were found not in violation of state laws.

In Ohio, the courts have ruled that bare breasts do not violate the state nudity law. PedanticallySpeaking 14:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not NPOV

One goal is to avoid the nuisance of finding a hidden place for breastfeeding. However, the idea of topfree equality obviously goes further than being allowed to expose breasts when one has this "excuse". This is not impartial and contains a point of view. --Denise Norris 14:49, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

The term "Topfree"

Topless actually makes sense, because it means without a top. It's not a bad word. Topfree doesn't make sense on it's own - it should be instead breastfree since the breasts are what's actually being bound free. It should be topless equality or torso baring equality since it's a fight for the right to be without a top for both genders. Fanciful political makeup using nonsensical terms can dilute message of the originally stated purpose. --69.214.227.51 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason "topless" isn't used is becuase of the sexual connotations it has, although I feel it shouldn't have them I cannot dictate the use of language. "Topfree" is the term used because it is the freedom to be without a top (see Topfree Equal Rights Association). "Topless equality" to me sounds like it means equality that has no top. "Torse baring" is overly medical, and implies an active action (flashing) rather than a passive state (not wearing a top). Thryduulf 23:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the image

I have reinserted the image after an anon user removed it without even an edit summary as their first (and so far only) contribution to Wikipedia. We could probably find a better image, but until that time there is no need (imho) to remove the picture. Thryduulf 23:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

It's kind of silly to have an image for this article at all. Is there anyone on the earth who would require a picture to grasp the concept? Having pictures just for the sake of having pictures is the way they do childrens books. And Wikipedia, too, so it would seem. Jordan Langelier 19:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

more on the photo and MPOV

I'm not asking to remove the photo. In fact I specifically don't want it removed. I think it stands as a testimony as to why these people don't know equality of law or liberation of spirit; neither the person who put up the photo, or these two young women, who stand in a shade darkened balcony, standing beside a tv satellite, one with arms pulled taunt above her head, crossed at the wrist, hands out of view; presented in what is a traditional pornographic bondage pose, both women with breasts and body for display (mpov). Since when did it take topless equality to stand on a private balcony, up six stories in a private apartment? Compare to the young men in the "bare_chested" Wikipedia page, basking in the sun, enjoying his own body, the other men rock climbing and rocking out singing; all active. He's called shirtless and the Wikipedia clarification that it's not appropriate to call men "topfree". Equality? NPOV? No MPOV (Male Point of View).

I just ran my post (above) by a law professor I know and she wrote this about the photo:

"Young, pretty, skinny women with pert breasts on display for the male gaze. A sterotyped image that looks more like "Girls Gone Wild" or home porn images than a rejection of gender stereotype and an embrace of women's real equality. Yuck!"

Then find a better picture. I have been trying with regards this image, nudism, etc. but so far I have not found any suitable images that have a suitable copyleft or public domain copyright. In the coulple of instances that I have been able to identify the copyright owner, neither have responded to my request. Thryduulf 11:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was just expressing my opinion. Believe me, the last thing I'm interested in doing is putting another nudie photo, topless or not, of any women on the internet for _any_ reason. :-)

I agree with the anonymous writer. There must be a more suitable picture to use, if there need be one at all. I say this not as an expression of my Victorian values, but in agreement with the astute view expressed by anonymous. I feel such a casual photo (seemingly a snapshot of one the contributors friends or of themselves) may impugn the mighty reputation of wikipedia. Vonsnip

I believe that since the point of topfree equality is to give women the same rights as men. A picture of a topfree man and a woman in public such as a park or beach would make more sense with the article

Agreed. By the way, I am removing it since there doesn't seem to be evidence that it is actually a B.C. picture. If I'm wrong, you can reinstate it. Thanks, 24.54.208.177 03:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)