Appeals Court Strikes Down Girl's Public Nudity Argument

[dross]

It goes back to the invention of the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Following the social more's of the area you are in to best you can just shows you have at least the minimum of common sense and respect for the culture in which you are immersed for the locals who have you out numbered a million to one, to allow you to live.

Acting like an ignorant stupid disrespectful yahoo may be a compliment to the chef with out the slightest change other than company and geography. There's a million examples only the most ignorant and arrogant of fools thinks his own reality floats about him like a bubble where ever he roams and people's behaviour means the same where ever he goes.

Do what you want at home but at my house flaunting your pee pee around will get yer poo poo kicked at the least.

When in Europe, I don't give a crap what they do or any one else does.

I thought we were discussing what community standards should be, and if they should be codified and backed by the coercive power of the government.

You certainly have the right and the power to boot me from your premises for flaunting my pee-pee at your house (though it IS truly magnificent, a sight everyone should see at least once in their lives). The issue isn't what's allowed at your house, it's what's allowed in public. And it's mainly about female breasts, not male or female sexual organs.

Do you consider it reasonable that a woman who goes topless in public is a criminal, and a man who does so is not?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Okay, so what I hear BoR, dross, and rambone saying is: Our stake in society is to prevent predators from robbing/killing us individually by acting collectively to prevent/punish such conduct. Where our communal moral standards conflict with each other, it is not the government's place to compel behavior. Have I got it right?

 

[rambone]

Okay, so what I hear BoR, dross, and rambone saying is: Our stake in society is to prevent predators from robbing/killing us individually by acting collectively to prevent/punish such conduct. Where our communal moral standards conflict with each other, it is not the government's place to compel behavior. Have I got it right?

That's right, unless you believe your commune will always match 100% to your views. If the majority wants to ban guns, ban open carry, ban criticizing your betters, ban exposed skin, ban traveling at night, ban eating meat, ban the vehicles you drive, ban having more than one child, ban possession harmless plants, ban sale of certain beverages on a certain day of the week, etc, etc.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That's right, unless you believe your commune will always match 100% to your views. If the majority wants to ban guns, ban open carry, ban criticizing your betters, ban exposed skin, ban traveling at night, ban eating meat, ban the vehicles you drive, ban having more than one child, ban possession harmless plants, ban sale of certain beverages on a certain day of the week, etc, etc.

Okay, throughout this whole ordeal I was looking for a unified rationale for why a society which values its personal freedoms would band together at all and under what circumstances the majority's "standards" would reasonably be constrained by individual freedoms; the gradations between "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" and "that which is not forbidden is compelled".

 

[Bill of Rights]

Okay, so what I hear BoR, dross, and rambone saying is: Our stake in society is to prevent predators from robbing/killing us individually by acting collectively to prevent/punish such conduct. Where our communal moral standards conflict with each other, it is not the government's place to compel behavior. Have I got it right?

That sounds pretty close, yes. I'm of the opinion that the government should not be in the business of legislating morality, i.e. I don't agree with "sin taxes" any more than I do clothing requirements or sex laws relative to those acts between mutually consenting adults. Why, pray tell, is it any of the government's business whether an adult couple engages in a particular act or not or for that matter, what the "exchange" is? If a woman is willing to pay me money for sex, that's a crime, but if she's willing to move in with me, cook for me, clean my house, and still go out and earn her own money to buy food, clothes, etc., that's perfectly acceptable and encouraged. And this makes sense why? In fact, according to Indiana law, a parent helping a child who is constipated, a spouse helping his/her partner prepare for a colonoscopy, a medical person placing a urinary catheter in a male patient, etc. are all technically in violation of IC 35-49-1-9(2):

IC 35-41-1-9
"Deviate sexual conduct" defined
Sec. 9. "Deviate sexual conduct" means an act involving:
(1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.

What I'm saying is that we have too many laws that could easily be applied in ways their authors never intended and could thus make criminals of all of us for things that should not be crimes. You asked me before (and I saw this before I got to answering it) if there has ever been a society that did not have laws addressing communal moral standards as they interact with basic rights. You got an answer from someone else, i.e. Which is more important? If we must trample upon one or the other, which should it be? I would answer that individual rights should take precedence, that the individual's essential liberty is more important than the collective and malleable "communal standard". No, I don't think we've ever seen a community that did not have such a set of laws. That does not make them right, just common. Nathaniel Hawthorne gave us an example:

​

as did the town of Salem, MA:

​

and I don't think anyone here would support returning to those standards.

Obviously, this is reductio al absurdum, but the larger point is the one made so well upthread: The difference between forcing women to wear shirts and forcing them to wear burqas is a matter only of degree and is based in the idea that women are inferior and must be controlled and that men have base instincts that cannot be denied, such that a man seeing an uncovered female breast will be moved to sexually dominate the woman on whom the breast is found. It hearkens to when a woman's manner of dress was acceptable evidence in court that "she brought her rape on herself".

We have a law in this country (since this is a gun board, after all! ) that does not permit any firearm for use by the general public with a projectile fired from a rifled barrel to exceed 0.50" in diameter. Often, those who would ban .50 caliber firearms say that the Founders never intended that we would use weapons like that. This also is a matter of degree. (That it does have a grain of truth to it is something the antis tend to ignore; it's true, the Founders had no use for a .50 cal. firearm. It was too small for them, as theirs were closer to .70 cal.) The antis focus on the "too large" .50 cal because it's presently the largest. Should they somehow win that battle, the next to go would be the .45 ACP, the .44, the .41, etc.

To the topic of our discussion, a woman should have her own choice, not dictated by any government, what she chooses to wear. Along with that choice goes the responsibility for her actions: If a business refuses to allow her entry dressed (or not) as she is, she may choose to dress more modestly or to not patronize that business. If she is scorned or ridiculed by others, that is a reaction she has brought on herself, and is within her control to end.

She should not have to fear the law based on someone else's morality or lack thereof.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I give up.

That's your choice. I don't see why the option should not exist; there are presently "family bathrooms", intended for use if an opposite-gender partner or caregiver or parent must assist someone in need of those facilities. There are also gender-segregated bathrooms as well. Obviously, there are more "seats" in the segregated ones than in the "family", as the incidence of usage will probably be far smaller, but it sounds like you're saying this option should not exist.

I cannot agree.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Relatively recently in history, breasts weren't considered as sexual as they are now. The idea that they are the same as exposing the sexual organs is silly.

I also think that we're silly about exposing sexual organs. It's one thing to display yourself in an aroused state engaging in sexual behavior in public, and quite another to momentarily become exposed for a good reason.

In Europe, it's pretty common at the beach for people to show up in their clothes, then change into their suits at the beach in the open. For a moment, they are fully exposed. Big deal.

Also, in Germany it was acceptable and legal to urinate by the side of a road. You just had to turn your back to the road. Very sensible. In this country in some jurisdictions, urinating with your back turned to the public can put you on a sex offender list for the rest of your life.

I think we have more important things to worry about than little Suzy or little Chuckie getting a look at someone's boobies or pee-pee.

And would it not be more in little Suzy or Chuckie's best interest for their Mommies and Daddies to teach them that people have different parts and that they're kinda like pooping... sometimes accidents happen, but you try to keep them private.

It goes back to the invention of the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Following the social more's of the area you are in to best you can just shows you have at least the minimum of common sense and respect for the culture in which you are immersed for the locals who have you out numbered a million to one, to allow you to live.

Acting like an ignorant stupid disrespectful yahoo may be a compliment to the chef with out the slightest change other than company and geography. There's a million examples only the most ignorant and arrogant of fools thinks his own reality floats about him like a bubble where ever he roams and people's behaviour means the same where ever he goes.

Do what you want at home but at my house flaunting your pee pee around will get yer poo poo kicked at the least.

When in Europe, I don't give a crap what they do or any one else does.

Jack, you have such a way with words.

 

[rambone]

In general I think any law that punishes you for not doing something is wrong.

Should you be criminally punished for not buying health insurance?
Should you be criminally punished for not voting in an election?
Should you be criminally punished for not reporting jaywalkers?
Should you be criminally punished for not helping old ladies cross the street?
Should you be criminally punished for not shoveling your sidewalk?
Should you be criminally punished for not getting dressed in the morning?


Furthermore, what about all these kinds of examples, that even all you morally superior folks should be able to sympathize with?

What if a woman was swimming and lost her top? Arrest her!
What if a woman was in an accident and her clothes were destroyed? Arrest her!
What if a woman was assaulted and was fleeing without clothes? Arrest her!

A good law shouldn't have to rely on "common sense enforcement." We are talking about agents of the government here. If you always want to fall back on the excuse of "just doing my job" and "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them," then we can toss that whole notion of common sense out the window.

The law is unnecessary at best, unjust at worst. We don't need the government to tell us how to dress. If it is so against the will of the community to expose skin, then the ridicule and laughter should cause them to cover up, not the tasers and handcuffs.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I saw a halter top disappear at a concert one time when a young lady was crowd surfing.

I did the gentlemanly thing and gave her the concert T that I had just bought.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I thought we were discussing what community standards should be, and if they should be codified and backed by the coercive power of the government.

You certainly have the right and the power to boot me from your premises for flaunting my pee-pee at your house (though it IS truly magnificent, a sight everyone should see at least once in their lives). The issue isn't what's allowed at your house, it's what's allowed in public. And it's mainly about female breasts, not male or female sexual organs.

Do you consider it reasonable that a woman who goes topless in public is a criminal, and a man who does so is not?

Does it matter what I think? I sure as heck don't set the community standards or there would be a lot of things different besides this.

JFYI, I'm all for women going topless regardless of what men do.

 

[Fargo]

And this makes sense why? In fact, according to Indiana law, a parent helping a child who is constipated, a spouse helping his/her partner prepare for a colonoscopy, a medical person placing a urinary catheter in a male patient, etc. are all technically in violation of IC 35-49-1-9(2):

IC 35-41-1-9
"Deviate sexual conduct" defined
Sec. 9. "Deviate sexual conduct" means an act involving:
(1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.


Blessings,
Bill

No, no, no they aren't. Not even close. So horribly wrong. Nothing in the DEFINITION you've posted makes anything criminal. That is why there is nothing about a penalty or you not being allowed to do it.

Try:

IC 35-42-4-2
Criminal deviate conduct
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally causes another person to perform or submit to deviate sexual conduct when:
(1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;
(2) the other person is unaware that the conduct is occurring; or
(3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to the conduct cannot be given;
commits criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony.
(b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(3) it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant; or
(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.37; P.L.320-1983, SEC.24; P.L.183-1984, SEC.3; P.L.31-1998, SEC.4.

...for one of the codes listing what is actually illegal; namely forced or drugged deviate sexual conduct.

Joe

ETA: This isn't the first time you've claimed this and I've already pointed this out to you once in the below thread. You should really stop using the example.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...marry_for_it_but_you_cannot_pay_for_it-5.html

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, no, no they aren't. Not even close. So horribly wrong. Nothing in the DEFINITION you've posted makes anything criminal. That is why there is nothing about a penalty or you not being allowed to do it.

Try:

...for one of the codes listing what is actually illegal; namely forced or drugged deviate sexual conduct.

Joe

ETA: This isn't the first time you've claimed this and I've already pointed this out to you once in the below thread. You should really stop using the example.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...marry_for_it_but_you_cannot_pay_for_it-5.html

Actually all three things Bill listed could be against the law as it is written. Medical personal putting in a catheter on an unconscious patient, parent who tells their child to let them do it or they will be spanked, spouse's partner who has mental problems such as late stage Alzheimer. All three would fit the criteria.

 

[Fargo]

Actually all three things Bill listed could be against the law as it is written. Medical personal putting in a catheter on an unconscious patient, parent who tells their child to let them do it or they will be spanked, spouse's partner who has mental problems such as late stage Alzheimer. All three would fit the criteria.

Ah, but you are adding things and really stretching it. Additionally, nothing you posted is illegal because of the DEFINITION Bill keeps posting as if it criminalizes something.

If IC 35-41-1-9 did actually criminalize anything, oral sex between consenting adults would be illegal in Indiana.

Joe

 

[theweakerbrother]

Maybe more people seeing more boobs will "normalize" the experience and women won't be forever having to remind men that they actually have eyes and faces and that it's much more respectful to talk with them to their faces than it is to talk to their chests.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! That is the BEST joke I've heard all year. Reps inbound.

Men's eyes will always gravitate towards exposed breasts. I've seen cars crash on 25th St from driver's checking out unexposed breasts from jogging women. A man can certainly train his eyes to look at a woman's face rather than her breasts while communicating but that's like putting a cold sixer in front of an alcoholic's feet and asking him not to drink it.

Maybe I am only exposing my own depravity?

I learned from an adult male role model that speaking like the above is disrespectful and I've learned to "look up there" when communicating with women but it wasn't easy and my eyes still tend to want to gravitate southward.

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, no, no they aren't. Not even close. So horribly wrong. Nothing in the DEFINITION you've posted makes anything criminal. That is why there is nothing about a penalty or you not being allowed to do it.

Try:

...for one of the codes listing what is actually illegal; namely forced or drugged deviate sexual conduct.

Joe

ETA: This isn't the first time you've claimed this and I've already pointed this out to you once in the below thread. You should really stop using the example.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...marry_for_it_but_you_cannot_pay_for_it-5.html

I just looked back, Joe, and yes, you did point that out. That however, does not mean I saw it. As it happens, I did not, but I have now.

My apologies. While you're correct on both cites, that the definition does not have a punishment attached, the IC 35-42-4-2 would not be possible without that definition.

In addition, there is no exception in the statute you cited protecting a parent, medical professional, or spouse.

You should understand that my intention here is not to mislead anyone and if I say something that is incorrect, I'll be the first to admit it. Your tone to me comes across as condescending and borderline insulting, but completely unnecessary. If you wouldn't use that tone talking to me in person, and I'd hope you'd be more polite than that, kindly don't do so here.

All of that said, I'll again say that I'm no lawyer. If you are, great. That doesn't mean your opinion is gospel truth, but it does mean that you speak with more specialized knowledge than I or indeed, most other INGO members have. I respect that level of education, but I'm only going to respect the person if he shows respect to me as well.

Thanks.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

I just looked back, Joe, and yes, you did point that out. That however, does not mean I saw it. As it happens, I did not, but I have now.

My apologies. While you're correct on both cites, that the definition does not have a punishment attached, the IC 35-42-4-2 would not be possible without that definition.

No apologies necessary. I was just a bit peeved that you were repeatedly misstating the law after it had been previously pointed out that your example was flawed. I certainly take you at your word that you hadn't gotten around to reading the responses to your previous post.

In addition, there is no exception in the statute you cited protecting a parent, medical professional, or spouse.

Nor should there be any such blanket exception. Doctors/spouses/parents shouldn't automatically be able to shove things up peoples behinds against their wills.

You should understand that my intention here is not to mislead anyone and if I say something that is incorrect, I'll be the first to admit it. Your tone to me comes across as condescending and borderline insulting, but completely unnecessary. If you wouldn't use that tone talking to me in person, and I'd hope you'd be more polite than that, kindly don't do so here.

All of that said, I'll again say that I'm no lawyer. If you are, great. That doesn't mean your opinion is gospel truth, but it does mean that you speak with more specialized knowledge than I or indeed, most other INGO members have. I respect that level of education, but I'm only going to respect the person if he shows respect to me as well.

As noted above, my tone was harsh solely because this wasn't the first time that you had posted this and someone had pointed out that you were misstating the law in a pretty egregious way. That made it appear that you just didn't care about what the truth actually was if it furthered your argument. That is conduct I do not respect.

I take you at your word you hadn't bothered to read the responses to your previous post. Please consider the harsh tone of my previous post withdrawn to the fullest extent possible.

Best,


Joe

 

[Bill of Rights]

No apologies necessary. I was just a bit peeved that you were repeatedly misstating the law after it had been previously pointed out that your example was flawed. I certainly take you at your word that you hadn't gotten around to reading the responses to your previous post.

Nor should there be any such blanket exception. Doctors/spouses/parents shouldn't automatically be able to shove things up peoples behinds against their wills.

As noted above, my tone was harsh solely because this wasn't the first time that you had posted this and someone had pointed out that you were misstating the law in a pretty egregious way. That made it appear that you just didn't care about what the truth actually was if it furthered your argument. That is conduct I do not respect.

I take you at your word you hadn't bothered to read the responses to your previous post. Please consider the harsh tone of my previous post withdrawn to the fullest extent possible.

Best,


Joe

Thank you. I consider that subject closed. On the issue of this subject, I think that there are exceptions to your position in re: "Nor should there be any such blanket exception. Doctors/spouses/parents shouldn't automatically be able to shove things up peoples behinds against their wills." A blanket exception I would agree would be out of place if it was not specifically tailored to necessity. Consent would be the central point here, and while actual, informed consent would be impossible from a child or an advanced-Alzheimer's patient, implied consent would apply, but my concern is that one of these laws could easily be misused/misapplied to charge someone whose action was intended not sexually but clinically.

This, however, is far afield from the original topic, that of a young lady who is bound by a law that makes her a criminal solely for the fact that she didn't keep her nipples covered, a crime that victimizes no one and which is an issue for her parents to address (only because she had not reached her majority yet) and IMHO, not for the courts. You brought up the issue of unisex bathrooms and changing rooms and I responded that so long as the option exists for people to have privacy, this is not a problem. You replied indicating frustration with the fact that this already exists. I'm not sure I understand the harm in that either, given the precondition that use of such a facility remains optional and not mandatory. I'd like to hear (read) why this is problematic to you, if you're willing to share that. It's clearly not a consent issue (in re: adults) so the objection puzzles me, since a person unwilling to be present when those of the opposite gender are performing these actions could simply choose the gender-segregated facility instead.

Thanks again for your reply.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[zibby43]

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.

Legislation is binding authority.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Legislation is binding authority.

Sure is. Right up until it's declared Constitutionally unenforceable.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ah, but you are adding things and really stretching it. Additionally, nothing you posted is illegal because of the DEFINITION Bill keeps posting as if it criminalizes something.

If IC 35-41-1-9 did actually criminalize anything, oral sex between consenting adults would be illegal in Indiana.

Joe

I added some things to show that everything BoR listed could be against the law. And stretching it? Yes a bit, do I think that the things I listed would be prosecuted and convicted? Probably not but there is a possibility. And that is how the law is written. ETA I could see the parent in the situation I listed being charged and prosecuted, and maybe convicted. Kid goes to school/pre-school and tells the teacher that mommy/daddy put their finger/something up my butt. I almost guarantee that CPS and or LE will be getting involved and it will be up to the parent to prove that it was medically necessary. I can see the same with the spouse or medical patient also, although perhaps not quite as likely.

You pointed out the difference between the definition he posted and the law that criminalizes the act. I pointed out that irregardless of which he posted, the acts he mentioned depending on the circumstances are technically against the law.

Just like the threads we have had on here about whether someone without a LTCH can shoot a handgun off their own property/business, if accompanied by a LTCH holder, or even if just handling one at a gunstore or someone elses house is against the law. I believe that how the law is written, that the actions above are technically against the law. Whether someone will be prosecuted for them may or may not be a different story.

You brought up the issue of unisex bathrooms and changing rooms and I responded that so long as the option exists for people to have privacy, this is not a problem.
Blessings,
Bill

Bill I usually agree with you, on this I have a problem. If a business owner wishes to only provide unisex bathrooms that is their choice. If you don't like it go elsewhere, literally and figuratively . Now if you are saying that Gov shouldn't mandate unisex bathrooms or not, and that the option exists for businesses to provide for privacy or not, than I have no issue with what you posted.