So the Minnesota Supreme Court rules that women’s bare breasts in public do not qualify as “lewd”. What’s redditor’s thoughts?
So the Minnesota Supreme Court rules that women’s bare breasts in public do not qualify as “lewd”. What’s redditor’s thoughts?
Comments
I would agree. Women should be allowed to be topless in the same places that men are allowed to be topless.
Women have been legally entitled to show their breasts in public in NYC since 1992.
You’re not going to see the women you’re hoping to see walking around with their bare breasts out in public in Minnesota.
They’re just boobs. Who cares?
Throw off your Puritan shackles America, it’s past time for it.
Let em breathe
There are so many bigger things to worry about than a titty
Who remembers “Free the Nipple!”?
If women’s boobs are lewd, men’s boobs are twice as lewd.
Correct.
People love boobies. Everyone. They’re only “ashamed” because someone told them to be. So tell them not to be ashamed!
It’s already like this in Canada. Breasts are not lewd. They are breasts.
There are actually several States where going topless is legal. People just don’t realize it, and most women are not comfortable doing it. Some police officers don’t even realize it’s legal in many places.
Good.
I don’t consider nudity to be sexual unless it’s framed in a sexual sense, which, if they are, the topless women in question would get in trouble for other things. Let thine boobies free if you want, I really don’t care
Fair is fair
Anywhere I see men’s boobs out, I wonder why women can’t have the same freedom. Personally, I like the support of a bra or a bikini, so I’m not gonna be out on the beach topless, but more power to anyone that does want to be because who gives a shit about people’s chests.
The summer it became legal in Ontario was fucking awesome for teenage me, especially Canada Day.
It kept up until winter, then everyone forgot about it. Some women literally got ticketed for doing it because the stupid pigs even forgot it was legal.
Now you see it once every few years.
Nice
Been legal in Canada since the 90’s. I have seen it exactly once since
Agree. It’s my thoughts that are lewd, not the breast.
I firmly support bare breasts in public.
They’re not lewd. They’re mammary glands for feeding babies. Just because they turn some people on isn’t a reason to outlaw them.
It seems taboo because humans have made it taboo.
Men can be shirtless. Women should be allowed to do the same. And it shouldn’t be some wild, progressive statement to believe that. It’s just fuckin’ fair.
Considering the size of the tits on the men at the beach, fairs fair.
How can a naked human body be inherently lewd? That makes no sense. It depends on the context of the nudity to qualify as lewd.
Who here has never seen one?
Literally every human being has seen breasts. Most surprisingly to some people, all CHILDREN have seen breasts! Can you imagine?
I mean, make it legal, all good. Seems like a good way to attract a problem though. Lots of creepers in the world. I’m sure 99.9% of women don’t even care to do it.
Edit: now that I think of it, could this be more related to breast feeding in public and not needing to be covered? That would make perfect sense.
I agree.
Nipples are nipples. Who cares how much fat is behind them.
I’ve seen dudes with bigger chests and nipples than some woman and if that’s okay I see no issue!
People are people and nudity is nudity. I think a lot of the issues people face is making something natural taboo.
It’s always been wild to me that extreme violence usually gets a pg-13 rating. But if you show a nipple or say Fuck, we are going rated R.
There are a lot of people in here trying very hard to deny the reality that women’s breasts are sexually attractive body parts that engender arousal in a significant portion of the population. “They’re just breasts!” Well yes. And for millennia, they have been one of the component parts of the human body that make up the cocktail of sexual attraction. There isn’t an entire category on your favorite “Yes, I’m over 18” website called “Big Elbows.” You’re welcome to deny it, you’re welcome to minimize it, but that’s a load of garbage and inherently you know it.
But the problem with having the argument about them at all is this: it shouldn’t matter if breasts are a body part people find attractive. Covered or uncovered. People find all kinds of body parts attractive. Legs, butts, faces, biceps, forearms, midriffs, you name it. What matters is that you are responsible for your own behavior, not the behavior of others.
Trying to force women to cover up at all times, making toplessness illegal, it’s all a way of tacitly saying, “Men don’t have the ability to control themselves and if a topless woman makes them horny, surely they’ll attack her and it will be her fault, so the women must cover up.” The problem is always pinned on the person being assaulted, not the person doing the assault.
Topless laws are just another modality for “If she didn’t want it, she shouldn’t have dressed like that.” Except now it’s that she shouldn’t have undressed like that. As if showing your breasts in a public place is an invitation to assault. But also as if a man who wants to assault a woman would be stopped by a sweater.
This is correct. There is nothing inherently sexual about a woman’s breast just like there’s nothing inherently sexual about a butt, an ankle, a foot, lips, etc. Nudity itself is not inherently sexual and thus not inherently lewd.
It’s all about context and intent. I think most of the laws restricting public nudity should be repealed because they’re typically sexist and they lack the context. No one is damaged by seeing a naked person just existing and not forcing them to look.
To put it this way: some people have a foot thing. They can get going when someone with a nice arch wears open toed shoes with the right color toenail polish. That doesn’t mean a person who does that is guilty of a crime because someone got turned on by it, or a kid who could conceivably have a latent foot thing saw it. Boobs are the same way. They’re just boobs. Unless someone is forcing you to look at them or actively trying to make you be turned on by them they should be considered equally lewd to a man’s bare chest – not at all.
Putting it yet another way: a wet t-shirt contest is lewd where a woman freeing the nipple to avoid tan lines at the beach is not.
It doesn’t matter, every time this conversation comes up women just prefer not to show their titties in public by like 1000-1 for both safety and privacy reasons.
Sounds fair. Anyone can go topless. Most women won’t take advantage of it.
It’s been that way here in Ontario since 1996 iirc. In that time I’ve seen one woman topless in a public space.
These laws are about legal equality and not about enforcing compliance. Just because it’s legal to do something, doesn’t mean people will do it; it just means they have the legal right to do so if they wish.
A man can show his tits anywhere so why not a woman?
I’m too busy being worried about fascism to care about titties.
Context makes all the difference. I did a lot of live sketching with nude models at school and and within the first 5 mins I learned a valuable lesson. Even full nudity isn’t inherently erotic, and boobs can look like googly-eyes if you aren’t careful about where you draw the nipples.
I mean, are mens tits inherently sexual? Whats the difference, that a baby juices a woman’s boobs?
If a baby sucking on a boob makes it a sexual object, then that’s pretty fucken weird bro.
Are mens breasts “lewd”?
freeTheNipple
They’re just boobs. We’ve all got em, and if men can have their titties out when they want to, then women should be able to as well.
They’re right. The US is, far too puritanical about things like this, and, we’re worse off for it.
As a woman? Yay!
As a lesbian? Nice 😎
No offense but I’ve seen men with bigger breasts than me walking on the beach. Why are their tits ok but mine are lewd?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I say.
This is the correct decision, Americans are incrediblr.prudes. just go on about your day, the titties won’t hurt you.
Completely agree.
Many states land in similar rules.
New York law says women can be topless anywhere a man can.
Hawaii doesn’t have laws against nudity or toplessness, but does have rules against behavior intended to arouse – so something sunbathing topless is fine, breastfeeding in public is fine, but flashing someone as a tease or whatever would cross a line.
If someone was just topless going about their day, it’s not lewd and the court got it right.
I might argue that laws could be written to include any particular bare skin as part of the statute – would probably need to not specify gender so “bare nipples” or similar would require everybody to at least wear pasties, not just women – but if the statute is against “lewd behavior”, then intent and action matter as much as how much skin is showing.
Can’t see a woman’s breasts without getting weird about it? Try ****ing yourself! Grow up, basically.
The only ones who will show them in public aren’t ones you’re gonna want to see…
Women should absolutely be able to be topless in public if they want to, especially considering some women breastfeed. Nipples are not lewd.
What are house prices like in Milwaukee?
Being lewd is specifically performing an action or pose that is intended to get a response. That’s why your doctor doesn’t slip you a $20 when they’re done examining your private areas. Your parts aren’t what’s lewd, it’s your intention of showing them.
It’s not up to Reddit. When we’re talking about the Supreme Court, the police, etc. what matters is definitions. Some places ban public nudity altogether, some don’t, some consider it protected activity. “Lewd,” at least in Minnesota, means sexual or sexually-charged activity, especially in front of people who had no choice in the matter (i.e. doesn’t apply to what happens in people’s bedrooms).
There are all sorts of situations where exposing breasts in public is a lewd act. The Supreme Court is saying it isn’t always a lewd act. This particular case was a close call (thus why it made it to the Supreme Court) because the woman seemed to intentionally be an exhibitionist who was displaying her breasts for her own excitement, but she wasn’t doing anything with them other than having them visible, and that’s not enough to be a crime in Minnesota because she was not engaged in sexual activity.
This allows babies to be fed in public instead of filthy bathrooms!