Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

[MikePapa1]

Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

 

[mrjarrell]

I think the appeals court is dead wrong in their judgment. If a man can walk around unshirted then the same should apply to women, as well.

 

[kedie]

I think the appeals court is dead wrong in their judgment. If a man can walk around unshirted then the same should apply to women, as well.

Even at 16?

 

[snapping turtle]

If she was 18. Fine.

If she was 18 I would like to see her legal arguments and briefs. So to speak.

 

[42769vette]

see what happens when you dont whip your kids

 

[DarkRose]

see what happens when you dont whip your kids

This.
All you have to do is go to the mall after school and see dozens of reasons people still need to whip their kids...

 

[mrjarrell]

Even at 16?

The ruling had nothing to do with her age, according to the article and I'd be willing to bet the "nudity law" isn't age specific either. Age is irrelevant in this case. If a guy can wander the streets without a top the same should apply to women.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I can think of all kinds of quippy things to say. There was a very troubling statement in the article, which was "The appeals court said the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives." Does that mean the Appeals Court believes that all laws are just because the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives? Seems like a very strange thing to say.

 

[littletommy]

I can think of all kinds of quippy things to say. There was a very troubling statement in the article, which was "The appeals court said the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives." Does that mean the Appeals Court believes that all laws are just because the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives? Seems like a very strange thing to say.

Yes, that is troubling. I think these "higher ups" truly believe themselves to be our saviors and heros. Very disturbing.

 

[Archbishop]

The ruling had nothing to do with her age, according to the article and I'd be willing to bet the "nudity law" isn't age specific either. Age is irrelevant in this case. If a guy can wander the streets without a top the same should apply to women.

Still a valid question.
If your, (Your used generically not you specifically.) argument is that hey she's do what ever a guy can do OK. Then someone else says fine than a 15 yr old or 16 yr girl says me to. And people say, "whoa whoa!" She's just a kid she can't do that!"
To which I say" why not? A 15 yr old boy can go around shirtless and no one cares what's the difference?"
The difference is clear and common sense. Right or wrong, western society sees woman's breast a lot more sexually than they do a man's chest.
You can say that this should be this way, you can even say that what the girl is doing is good and will help change this perception, but to say that there's no difference in a boy doing this and a girl doing this is being willfully blind to reality.
edit to mrjarrell I also realize that I used you post to springboard off into what my overall feelings where on this subject and such my whole post reflect more than just my response to your original quote.

 

[Benny]

I think the appeals court is dead wrong in their judgment. If a man can walk around unshirted then the same should apply to women, as well.

You won't hear me arguing.

 

[dross]

Damn, damn, damn the Indiana appeals court!

 

[Fargo]

I think the appeals court is dead wrong in their judgment. If a man can walk around unshirted then the same should apply to women, as well.

Egads, the court recognized that men aren't women and women aren't men. How dare they! I'm sorry but there is a huge difference between a breast and a dude's pec.

If you can't see that, I pity you. One is one of God's most glorious creations and the other is a dude's chests.

It must suck to not be able to appreciate breasts any more than you do a dude's chest...

Joe

 

[dross]

It must suck to not be able to appreciate breasts any more than you do a dude's chest...

Joe

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Fargo]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Ah, but there is, the two just aren't comparable... Seriously, I feel for any dude who can't appreciate them!

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can think of all kinds of quippy things to say. There was a very troubling statement in the article, which was "The appeals court said the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives." Does that mean the Appeals Court believes that all laws are just because the citizens of Indiana have spoken on the issue through their elected representatives? Seems like a very strange thing to say.

I think it's more likely they were looking for an excuse (ANY excuse!) to not rule in favor of 16-year-old girls exposing their breasts in public, and if you're looking for a reason why they would do that, just look at the replies in this thread.

At 16, a person of either gender may lawfully consent to sexual activity in Indiana. As such, they couldn't very well say that she could do that, but couldn't consent to publicly showing her breasts. This was, IMHO, less about the law and more about what is morally right in the eyes of the Court of Appeals. Further, basing my next comment more on human nature and what I understand to be the present make-up of the State Supreme Court, if this is taken to them, they also will deny her argument on some bogus grounds.

Speaking personally, I also could probably think of a few smart aleck remarks to make, but what it boils down to is that the law is, in fact, sexist in its text:

Indiana Code 35-45-4

IC 35-45-4-1
Public indecency
Sec. 1. [...] (d) As used in this section, "nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. [...]

(Actually, as I read that, it would include "wet-T-shirt contests" as well, since the shirts are opaque only until they are hit with the hose. You can forget about mooning anyone, too, unless you leave your skivvies on.)

Be that as it may, any showing of genitalia or the general area of them or the buttocks without an opaque covering is unlawful. Fine and dandy so far, because everyone has both, but only the female nipple is considered unacceptable. No way around it, that's discriminatory on the basis of gender.

I have an adult daughter who was a teenager less than five years ago. I don't want her bringing her milkshake to the yard, but it's not a matter for the law, IMHO.

There are other ways to do that.

[noparse]http://i51.tinypic.com/347fbth.jpg[/noparse] ...I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Jack Ryan]

I think the appeals court is dead wrong in their judgment. If a man can walk around unshirted then the same should apply to women, as well.

I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

There's a difference between appreciating and unequally applying the law. We have different equipment elsewhere, too... Suppose a law required men to wear some form of chastity device as a preventative against rape, restraining men only because of the low incidence of female rapists. After all, if you can't see the difference between the genders and their respective parts...

That I like seeing breasts on an attractive woman is irrelevant. That I would benefit from this having been decided differently is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if I'm unexpectedly out by the lake with my wife and I, feeling overly warm, decide to take off my shirt, I can do so. If she chooses likewise, by law she must have something else on or she cannot, and THAT is a law unfairly applied. Do I want my wife showing her chest to anyone who happens by? Of course not, but it should be her choice, not mine, nor yours, nor any state legislator's. THAT is the crux of the argument, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

I think it's more likely they were looking for an excuse (ANY excuse!) to not rule in favor of 16-year-old girls exposing their breasts in public, and if you're looking for a reason why they would do that, just look at the replies in this thread.

At 16, a person of either gender may lawfully consent to sexual activity in Indiana. As such, they couldn't very well say that she could do that, but couldn't consent to publicly showing her breasts. This was, IMHO, less about the law and more about what is morally right in the eyes of the Court of Appeals. Further, basing my next comment more on human nature and what I understand to be the present make-up of the State Supreme Court, if this is taken to them, they also will deny her argument on some bogus grounds.

Speaking personally, I also could probably think of a few smart aleck remarks to make, but what it boils down to is that the law is, in fact, sexist in its text:

Indiana Code 35-45-4

IC 35-45-4-1
Public indecency
Sec. 1. [...] (d) As used in this section, "nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. [...]

(Actually, as I read that, it would include "wet-T-shirt contests" as well, since the shirts are opaque only until they are hit with the hose. You can forget about mooning anyone, too, unless you leave your skivvies on.)

Be that as it may, any showing of genitalia or the general area of them or the buttocks without an opaque covering is unlawful. Fine and dandy so far, because everyone has both, but only the female nipple is considered unacceptable. No way around it, that's discriminatory on the basis of gender.

I have an adult daughter who was a teenager less than five years ago. I don't want her bringing her milkshake to the yard, but it's not a matter for the law, IMHO.

There are other ways to do that.

[noparse]http://i51.tinypic.com/347fbth.jpg[/noparse] ...I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...

Blessings,
Bill

What in the 14th Amendment gives 3 unelected lawyers on the Court of Appeals the authority to overrule the will of the people on this matter?

Are you really suggesting that it is blanketly impermissible for the people to recognize the difference between a breast and a dude's pec?

I really shouldn't have to explain this to any straight dude. They just AREN'T the same thing.

Joe

 

[Lex Concord]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

No, of course not.