Talk:Topfreedom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2nd US Federal Circuit note

"New York (and more generally, within the jurisdiction of the 2nd US Federal Circuit)"

As far as I can scour the internet, I can only see the ruling in the New York State Court of Appeals.

From my understanding, New York State Court of Appeals is NOT the same as the the 2nd US Federal Circuit. The the 2nd US Federal Circuit would include Vermont and Connecticut. I fail to find any evidence for legal toplessness in either of these two states.

If anybody second my opinion then remove that note? It may misinform some women on the laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.122.50 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 May 2007

Somewhat Semantic Issue Regarding Definition of Toplessness

Is top-freedom/toplessness really defined as freedom to expose the breasts? It seems to me that it specifically refers to freedom for women to expose the areola and nipple. The breasts themselves are exposed and even emphasised by the average bikini and the general interpretation of "exposure" in the west at least is that even a miniscule bikini is appropriate as long as the areolae are covered. Theoretically, this implies that women with small areolae are free to wear smaller bikinis than women with larger areolae. This in turn implies that the important consideration in "decency" terms is whether the areolae are visible rather than the breasts as a whole.

For example, I suspect that a small circle of material covering the nipple and areola would be considered tolerable on most western beaches, whereas a large T-shirt which only exposed the nipple and areola would be considered indecent. Doesn't this suggest that the controlversial subject under law is the exposure of the areola/nipple, not the exposure of the breast per se.

Does anyone have a view on whether this is in fact the operational definition taken by most people and legal systems or any evidence on this matter? Shinji nishizono 11:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mostly correct. However your point is logical, and many of these laws are illogical. For example wearing a teeny-tiny top is acceptable on most beaches, but if a woman tried wearing a "pasty" to cover just the nipple (thus leaving the rest of the breast uncovered), I have no doubt the local police would prosecute her for indecent exposure. Technically with the nipple covered, a woman should be okay, but she'd still be arrested. (Thus exposing the illogic of the law.) - Theaveng 10:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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 top free 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)

Seems not all District Attorneys in NY agree that there is topfree equality in the state -

Sept 19, 2005 - MORAVIA, N.Y. - Four women arrested after going topless on a downtown street last month say they didn't break any laws and want the charges against them dropped.

The women, each charged with exposure, are to appear Tuesday night in village court. If convicted of the violation they each face 15 days in jail and/or a $250 fine.

Charles Marangola, the attorney representing the women, said he's filed a motion to dismiss the case, maintaining that a 1992 state Court of Appeals decision allows women to go topless anywhere a man can.

"This thing should be dismissed outright," he said. "But if it isn't and these young ladies are found guilty at a trial ... if we have to go to the Court of Appeals, we will."

But Cayuga County Assistant District Attorney Charles Thomas said his office isn't convinced that the 1992 ruling gives blanket permission for women to go topless. Thomas said that in addition to the nudity violation, he'll argue that the women interfered with commerce.

The four women — Carol Clarke, 54, and Barbara Crumb, 61, both of Branchport; Claudia Kellersch, 40, of La Jolla, Calif.; and Madeleine McPherson, 40, of Rochester — were arrested Aug. 11 outside a grocery store in this village of 1,600 just south of Owasco Lake, 40 miles southwest of Syracuse.

Ohio: I'm not certain, that there is the rigth for topless women. Se this court ruling: http://www.wiccanweb.ca/article-18253.html

--D. Norris 10:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The NBC Today Show had an episode called Going topless in NYC. Please delete my post if the show I link to is offensive to the movement. If not could it be used as a source for the article?--E-Bod 02:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That case ended up being dismissed and didn't go any further. The deal is, according to law it's still illegal. But, that court ruling from 1992 seems to be holding every time. -newkai t-c 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO district attorneys who arrest a person, even though they KNOW the law says that person did nothing wrong, should be summarily dismissed from their job. (Otherwise a DA can just randomly arrest anybody, even if no law was broken.) - Theaveng 10:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

California

I see California on the list of theoretically topfree-legel states. I had never heard this before and since I live there and have followed the issue, I find hard to believe. Can anyone offer some kind of cite or other explanation why it’s on the list? ManaUser

It is clear from this [1] that California should not be on the list. Trollderella 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed CA from the list. ManaUser 18:02, 23 November 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)

but the point of view is not one of any real extreme, so i dont see the problem.Gimmiet 20:30, 22 March 2006 (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)

Topfree. Free of having to wear a top. Yeesh.

just fyi, some feminist political activist, myself included, strongly prefer the term _shirtfree_ rights activist instead of this rather cutsie term that we believe rings too close to topless without really challenging preconceived notions about women removing their shirts. --Nikkicraft 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

except, as I understand it, this is about being free to not wear any sort of top garment, including bikini tops, blouses, bras, etc. "Shirtfree" implies that you're only free from shirts. -kotra 20:56, 14 April 2006 (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. Marteau 19:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that at least ONE picture doesn't include pornagraphic material when dealing with this. Keep it like it is right now. JONJONAUG 23:52, 3 January 2006 (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

Here you go. [2]

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)

As a guy I really liked that picture but as a responsible wikipedian I agree that a picture of a mother nursing in the park might send a better message as to the topic of the article. Jtkiefer 08:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's totally reasonable to have a picture for this article, and I didn't find this one obscene. There are many articles with pictures that aren't particularly necessary, especially featured articles such as infinite monkey theorem. However, this isn't an article on the breast itself, so for informational purposes it would suffice to show something that wouldn't upset anyone, like a picture of some topless people from the back. Deco 03:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What would be appropriate is a photograph of someone being arrested or given trouble by authority, which might be possible to obtain from the movement itself. As much as I like pictures of pretty girls without any clothes on, gratuitous nudity would probably wind up most feminists, and therefore not be NPOV. Dunc|☺ 6 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

I agree that a picture of a man and a woman without their shirts on or a picture of a woman getting hassled by police for either going topless or breastfeeding in public or something like that would be more appropriate for the article. Jtkiefer 05:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Where's the image gone?

As a feminist i find equal rights to be important. I also beleive that laws are there for a reason. I went to a beach once, and decided to go topless, to my disappointment men were acting very childish, gawking at me, and shouting obsenities. I felt degraded. One of them even took it upon himslef to fondle me. I think it makes more sense to me that these laws keep us protected, because changing these laws will not guarantee that men wont act like animals. Topfree is just a way for perverts to get a free show so that they dont have to waste their money at strip clubs. If they were truely interested in men and women having equal rights they would ask men to put their shirts on instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:129.108.203.209 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 25 June 2005

So keep your shirt on...no one's making you take it off. Kurt Weber 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If a man fondles you, you should you your cell phone to call 911. That is called sexual assault, and is NOT acceptable in any way, shape, or form. Have the cracker arrested. - Theaveng 10:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How did u know i didnt hav enough money.

LOL JUST KIDING —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.99.148 (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Exploitation?

I've removed the following sentence:

They can also find themselves exploited by sex offenders, nudist/naturist publications, photographers and pornographers.

because it isn't relevant to the legal status of women's topfreedom (are illegally topfree women more likely to be "exploited" than legally topfree women?)

In particular, it strikes me that if nudist/naturist publications were to "exploit" women at all, they would exploit women who were entirely clothes-free, as opposed to just topfree. AdorableRuffian 15:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • I don't know how to enter this as a new person quoting. Sorry:

I rephrased my original text to make it clear it was not dealing with legality to read: "No matter what problems they could find for themselves legally, many women who become involved in shirtfree rights activism also are often disappointed to find themselves exploited by sex offenders, nudist/naturist publications, photographers and pornographers." For the ruffian fellow, just do a search on the internet, the exploitation by nudist/naturist publishers is more than well documented.

Where?! Please cite specific examples if you can. I've tried in vain to find a link between topfree/shirtfree rights activism and alleged "exploitation" by publishers of naturist/nudist material. AdorableRuffian 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

One example: Michelle Handler disagreed with a centerspread of approx 11 photos of a naked woman in the Naturist Society publication. She and others disassociated from the magazine and the organization and Michelle Handler demanded that the publisher not use her photographs in his magazine. He used them anyway. Many people, probably about 100, dropped membership and their involvement with the organization during that time to protest the centerspread and other images and associated events. You can do a search on Michelle Hander's name and you will run into articles about this. While you are at it do a search on "porn" "topless" "naturist" and "women" and you get will get 814,000 entries and not all those are about women getting arrested for having their shirts off. :-) It's the [MPOV] that keeps anyone from seeing the obvious on this one.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosadmin (talk • contribs) . Thryduulf 13:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason searches for terms like "topless", "naturist" and "nudist" return porn sites is because of the marketing techniques of the porn sites. They are exploiting the terms to attract business rather than the people, generally. If you actually look at the sites advertising nudist photos on a search result - about half of them don't actually claim this on the actual site. Most of those that do claim it don't actually have any such photos of nudists - the photos (or at least the free samples) are of models who may or may or may not actually be naked. There is at least one site out there claiming "Genuine teen nudist beach photographs" that are actually pictures of a women who are at least in their mid 20s who are indoors and generally fully clothed. There are undoubtedly sites on the internet with photographs of women who are topless in public that are used without permission, however there are also pictures of women in bikinis, wearing high heels, wearing short skirts, wearing leather, etc etc. all used in this manner. The legal status of the attire doesn't affect the likelyhood of their image being exploited.

In the specific example you quote, the number of people who protested or disasociated themselves due the incident is irrelevant, it was one issue of one magazine. The number of celebrities who have objected in this manner to photos of themselves appearing in publications without their permission is huge. Thryduulf 13:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thryduulf, Thank you for explaining to me how to put a signature at the end of my postings. I will do so from now on. As to the sites that exploit nudism to get high search results, I do realize this. However, the sheer numbers of results illustrate the unavoidable _sexual_ charge of women's nudity; nudism and naturism, far from being removed from this, is immersed in it. Nudist/Naturist publishers as well as the primary nudist organizations fall prey to these sexual exploiters just like everyone else. Men go into nudist/naturist publishing specifically so they CAN exploit women. Take the example of the American Association for Nude Recreation (at the time called American Sunbathing Association). The ASA placed Ed Lange, a child pornographer, the publisher of Young and Naked and other publications that exploited nudist women, as the editor of their own ASA nudist magazine. That went on for years and you better believe that was a disappointment! There are many other instances where women have been disappointed to find their nudity has been exploited for the benefit of the major nudist/naturist organizations and magazines. No, my example was not just dealing with one issue of the magazine. Yes you are correct that the centerspread was in one particular issue. However the reprinting of Michelle's photographs, expressly against her will, is yet another example. Also, there were numerous instances cited, if not on that internet page, elsewhere at that time. The example I cited also deals with a topless court case that went on for years where 11 shirtfree rights activists were disappointed enough to find their case was exploited for a nudist agenda using arguments that would benefit pornographers, i.e. corporate speech rather than it ever would the individual women's interest. They were so disappointed they dropped out of the case. There is a deluge of exploitation that many women in this culture must face and _will_ encounter_ when she makes a decision to remove her shirt, whether it be in the name of political unfairness due to discriminatory laws or her own pleasure; and it _is_ disappointing to many. Hosadmin 07:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing

I did some general editing to the page and cleaned this up a bit--removed/reworded some things that appeared to carry a POV. One of the passages I removed was "No matter what problems they could find for themselves legally, many women who become involved in shirtfree rights activism also are often disappointed to find themselves exploited by sex offenders, nudist/naturist publications, photographers and pornographers" since I didn't see how it was relevant to a discussion of the general social movement (I'd compare it to a more extreme form of saying that "one of the dangers of women being allowed to run for office is that they become subject to political assassinations and smear campaigns.") Even if it is true (which it isn't necessarily beyond a few well-reported examples), it doesn't belong in a discussion on the legal movement. I also believe that the "many" term inappropriate without citation (i.e., where do "many women" find that to be true?).

Mostly I kept what was said intact, and just moved things around a bit. Any comments? --Nachtrabe 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, all the changes were good. Thryduulf 11:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture

I can't really figure out from the discussion above what the concensus is on this. It seems odd, on a page talking about women having the right to be topless in places that men do that we have only a picture of a topless man. I think there are some pictures on the commons, and on WP that would be suitable - thoughts? Trollderella 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I swapped the picture out, I think the new one is better, showing a mixed group in a natural setting. Let me know what you think, Trollderella 22:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Aggred, much better. JONJONAUG 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My disaffiliation from the movement

Hi, I don't know who added my name over here on the topfree article, but if it is to be included here then please do not misrepresent me by calling me a topfree activist, and do not exclude the fact that I have disaffiliated with the movement due to their handling of the issues of exploitation of children and women. thanks. --22:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dandelion,

The relevancy of including it is because of accuracy.

how about this compromise?

1. nikki craft feminist, past shirtfree rights activist (arrested almost 20 times for removing her shirt on state and federal beaches, now disaffiliated from the movement.

or this:

2. nikki craft feminist, past shirtfree rights activist, now disaffiliated from the movement.

3. or just remove my name from the page altogether.

any of the above are fine with me. and if you choose the first I'll find you an exact number because I'm compiling that now for another request for citations of my total arrests for all acts of civil disobedience. thank you for all your work on these articles,--Nikkicraft 03:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

if your concern is too many words how abou this?

4. nikki craft, feminists, and disaffiliated shirt free rights activist.

I just saw this now. Dandelion1 00:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture is weak

It sounds like this page has had worse, but is this the best we can do for topfree equality? One weak image? Dandelion1 00:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do there need to be more pictures? And how is it "weak"? -kotra 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The sexual exploitation of women when they take their shirts off

I had written: "Women who become active in this movement have become discouraged when they find themselves exploited by sex offenders, nudist/naturist publications, photographers and pornographers."

Then someone removed that naturist and nudists publishers and photographers are exploiting women by rewriting it this way: "Some women who become active in this movement have become discouraged when they find themselves exploited by sex offenders, voyeurs and pornographers."

To remove this aspect, that women are discouraged that they find sexualized photos of themselves and other women and their protests published by nudist naturist publishers and photographers, puts forth a particular point of view. --Nikkicraft 21:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhere in this article that due to the financial incentive of the nudist/naturist press and photographers that a lot of money is made off photos of these women, sold to male subscribers/many non nudists or naturists, when the women appear in the magazines and there is a financial interest happening with the photographers and publishers who wield an inordinate amount of power and privilege in the movement; and make no mistake, they DO exploit these women, in some cases as much as the pornographers do. Does this prior editor deny that is what has happened in the whole history of the movement? If so, the way I see it, s/he is naive. If not then s/he denies a reality to protect the publishers and photographers profits and assures the women's exploitation so this page can be used for further recuitment. How is such an edit justifiable? I don't understand. --Nikkicraft 21:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

i am wondering why this nonissue is so important. lots of guys will stare at girls when the girls are topless, sure, but after they get used to it , the novelty of it all fades and it becomes normal breasts are not, by naure, sexual organs, its only one piece of western society that glorifies them, if this thought s to be carried to its fullest, considering how many fetishes some men have, are you suggesting that women be confined to wearing burkas?Gimmiet 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

nope not at all. In fact I agree with you about what women encounter from all kinds of morality groups. I know these things from personal experirence. I've been arrested over 15 times for having my shirt off and I'm aware of what women encounter after doing so. And no I'm not advocating that women wear burkas. : ) Some males expect women to cover their faces and the other side of that coin is that nudist/naturist males, and the pornographic culture, expect women have to take their clothes off, or they are called prudes or uptight. That's what the nudists do; that's the morality they purport and it's just as obnoxious. Neither is the solution. All I'm expecting here is that what women encounter when removing their shirts not be obliterated by falsely postive accounts of what the experience is like within the pornographic context of this culture in this wikipedia article.

I understand this is not the place to debate these issues, and I'm not intending to do so. however i will add that nooo, many lifetime nudist/naturist men will not get over their lurid, immature attitudes about objectifying women, and even children, no matter how many titties they get to see. They will never get enough photos; ask the naturist/nurist publishers. There's no end to the quamillion photos of nude women and children that must be supplied for this genre of coffeetable porn. Ed Lange is a good example. When he was on the Jenny Jones show he laughed at immature sexually repressed humor about nudist, stupid puns about weinies in hot dogs made by Jones, and never got over his pornographic view of women and nudity and he was around it all his life, same with Naturist Society photographer Leif Heilberg (photographer/publisher, along with nudist Edmond Leja, of Nudist Moppets and other child pornography magazines and the official Naturist Society photographer for years of gatherings). These men were lifetime nudist, as were the men subscribing to the magazines and exposure to nudity never got them past the nasty way they looked at nude people. Too bad, but it's not enough. --Nikkicraft 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

im not to sure that someone who would lower themselve enough to appear on jenny jones would be what one might call a good example of the male of the species.Gimmiet 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I went on Jenny Jones 15 years ago. I had never seen the show and was not impressed with the format. I stopped going on talkshows after that, and in fact never went any talkshow again. However, I sure don't regret going on that particular one, and it was really great to get to confront Ed Lange and tell him he belonged in a nudist hall of shame. But what I find really interesting about this particular conversation is that we are discussing nudist leaders and photographers publishing child pornography and betraying the trust of the nudist community and exploiting women and your expressed concern is how I lowered myself to go on Jenny Jones to confront an exploitative child pornographer publishing in the name of naturism. Pretty sad. --Nikkicraft 05:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

i maintain that ed isa very, very poor example of men in general, and that most would probly show more respect if educated a little.Gimmiet 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is only topfree women who gets their photos taken? There are lots of websites that capture photos of women just walking down the street, fully clothed in a bikini or shorts/shirt, and publish those photos online. The problem here is NOT how the woman is dressed ----- the problem is the man holding the camera who drools at the mere sight of a woman (even one fully clothed). Don't punish a woman for a cameraman's stupid actions. - Theaveng 10:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The topfree movement is a "social" movement?

The naturist movement is a "political" movement, but the topfree movement is a "social" movement? What does that mean? What's not political about fighting discriminatory laws? --Nikkicraft 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

probly becasue civil rights issocial, and fighting discrimmination is something that falls under civil rights.... foolish categorizations, but alas...Gimmiet 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ages of nursing children

Thanks, Kotra, for your many improvements to this article. Just one phrase, though, I think was pushing a controversial view: that only very young children should nurse. That discussion can be done in other other articles, such as Attachment parenting, Breastfeeding, and Infant formula. Here, however, let's just leave it unstated the ages of the nursing children. Korky Day 10:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

good idea. I didn't realize it was controversial and thought weaning after a few years was universally accepted, but now I understand that was a silly assumption to make. Thanks for correcting it. -kotra 18:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

'Basic argument'

This section isn't an evaluation of the for/against arguments, but instead is a 'why the supporters are right and the opponents are wrong' - I've tagged the article as an NPOV problem as a result. Cynical 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although to be fair, it used to be worse. Regardless, I'll try to organize it better, however I don't know of any against arguments other than the one already mentioned (that female breasts are sexual organs, and therefore indecent). If you would like to provide additional 'against' arguments, that would be appreciated. -kotra 02:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In organizing the edit, I removed some bits that were irrelevant or I didn't know where to put them. They may be useful later if this article is expanded:

• clothist (against nudism/naturism)
• There are isolated reports of men breastfeeding.
• (sometimes associated with the male gender)

(the latter is in reference to the view that female breasts are sexual organs)

Anyways, I've removed the NPOV tag although it may still be somewhat one-sided. I happen to agree with the points given in support of topfree equality, though, so I may not be the best judge of NPOV here. -kotra 03:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Europe

Being topfree at beaches and other places is not accepted in Europe as a whole. I live in Poland and I know there has been discussion when one lady removed here bikini top at the beach in Ustka. AFAIR she was persuaded to put the top back by a local policeman.

OTOH being topfree is both legal and popular on Spanish beaches.

Because Poland and Spain are the only countries that I have a first-hand knowledge of, I'd love some more comments about this topic from other Europeans.

Merge

Much of this is about toplessness and its acceptance; a lot of it has no provable connection to the "topfreedom" movement, for which there is not a not much evidence of significance is advanced. I have split the male barechestedness out from toplessness. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The two 'Top' articles overlap and really deal with social attitudes to breasts, so a new Title might be breast freedom, as a subtopic of breastsMgoodyear 20:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Debate on merging has been closed per [3]. Feel free to reopen debate if you disagree at Talk:Toplessness. — Eric Herboso 06:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Bottomfreedom

This is unrelated, but seems the logical place to ask if there is a similiar movement for men to be allowed to wear "open toed shoes" (sandals) and shorts in the same environments (work, fancy restaurants, etc) where women are allowed to wear so much less clothing than men, who are required to wear pants and closed shoes all year round (and often long sleeved shirts and a tie - sometimes a jacket as well). --RaffiKojian 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

omg, yes yes yes! i so want this equality to come about. they can wear these strappy little shoes while we have to wear big heavy dress shoes. likewise they can wear short little hotpants while i'm stuck in heavy jeans! grrr... damn them, and this discrimination against guys! Mathmo 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of - there are several groups advocating for the freedom of all people to wear "women's" clothing. Trollderella 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There Is no "western Culture"

Owwmykneecap 15:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Replacing link for Feminist Plaintiffs Withdraw From Cape Cod Shirtfree Case

Someone has once again removed the link for Feminist Plaintiffs Withdraw From Cape Cod Shirtfree Case once again claiming it appears there might be copyright concerns. There is no copyright issue. It was a public press release. If necessary I will post a slew of news articles that back it up as well. Should I do that to substantiate anything? Let me know. Also this page should have Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame on it as well. --Nikkicraft 09:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia

The statements "where resistance to topless nudity of women is greater than in mainland Europe or Australia", & "In some European countries and Australia, it is well-established that females may go topfree at places like beaches, parks and open air swimming pools" seem not to have been thoroughly researched in respect to Australia. I would assert that it is definitely not 'well-established' that women may go topless in parks, beaches or swimming pools in Australia.

WTF? are you KIDDING me????

No offence, but is wikipeida run by a group of angry hairy lesbian feminisits? Who the hell refers to toplessness as 'topfree equality'? It's called TOPLESSNESS. When chicks walk around with nothing covering their titties, it is TOPLESSNESS. not 'TOPFREENESS. BLUG!. What's next. Refering to stealing as 'ensuring economic equliaty?'.

If you read the article, it explains who refers to toplessness as 'topfree equality'. Trollderella 03:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Penn & Teller Reference

Just to let you guys know, this article was mentioned and shown in the most recent episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit, so may want to watch out for some extra vandalism :-) 67.175.0.75 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came here from watching the DVD. As usual, the content from a year ago has hugely changed. Wiki needs a ready way to show viewers versions of pages that are documented in other media. 24.130.129.35 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? -kotra (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting issue raised on Bullshit!

I'm very interested in one particular aspect of the "Topfreedom" movement that was brought up on tonight's Bullshit! (which also mentioned this very article). Elizabeth Book spoke of her encounter with two officers from the Department of Homeland Security who threatened to arrest her if she bared her breasts. I would really like a Wikipedia community fact check on this one. If it is verifiably true, it would definitely be worth including in this article, and would serve as a great example of the pointlessness of DHS. --Tjsynkral 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We should protect this article for a while, even if it's a bit too late. Klichka 06:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds? --Tjsynkral 00:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are often semi-protected when they're mentioned in the media, because often they receive a rapid influx of vandalism from the new visitors (see here). This article seems to have largely escaped vandalism from it, though. -kotra (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs more nudity! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.91.89 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 28 August 2007

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3