Civil Rights for men and women..

[Ceicei]

Let's keep this civil, okay?

New York City pays $29,000 for arresting topless woman
NEW YORK (AP) -- A woman arrested for exposing her breasts has accepted a $29,000 settlement from the city, her lawyer said. Jill Coccaro, 27, was arrested on a topless stroll two years ago, despite a 1992 state appeals court ruling that concluded women should have the same right as men to take off their shirts.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/18/topless.settlement.ap/index.html

Even though the laws in many places try to make sure the civil rights do not differ based on gender, apparently the "morality" view of organizations, or rather, of individuals within organizations, run counter against these same laws.

Do you think the moral view [definition: of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character] is too ingrained into the collective psyche of society to allow for a wider acceptance of these dress standards (or lack thereof) as set by legal entities?

How does society define what is moral? How much of morality is based upon religious beliefs? Does this conflict of views also extend to other types of rights? Was there ever a time when the mores [definition: The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group] of society is in full agreement with the laws of the area? Is this disparity increasing, or will the acceptance increase when the mores adjust to the laws?

- Ceicei

 

[CoryKS]

I'm probably going to be dinged for "blaming the victim" here, but is it possible that the reason there is a double standard in dress codes might be for the safety of the females? That allowing women to go topless in public just might not be the ticket to reducing the number of sexual assaults? Sure, one could say that "I should have a right to go in public without a shirt." Likewise, I could say that I have a right to walk through a poor neighborhood with a thousand-dollar bill taped to my forehead. Neither of these positions have anything at all to do with reality.

 

[Kacey]

Even though the laws in many places try to make sure the civil rights do not differ based on gender, apparently the "morality" view of organizations, or rather, of individuals within organizations, run counter against these same laws.

Indeed. There was a case a couple of days ago, at an amusement park here in Denver, in which a woman who was breastfeeding - which is legal in Denver, wherever it is legal for the mother to be - was asked to either cover up or move to a more isolated location so as not to offend the sensibilities of other patrons... while protesting vigorously that they did not object to the woman's actions in breastfeeding her child without covering him with a blanket or towel. This led to a breast-feeding "sit-in" shortly thereafter. Had it been a bare-chested man with a bottle, no one would have thought twice.

Do you think the moral view [definition: of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character] is too ingrained into the collective psyche of society to allow for a wider acceptance of these dress standards (or lack thereof) as set by legal entities?

Yes and no. I think that there is a great deal of variation - by age, by gender, by culture, etc. - in what is considered "acceptable". In Orthodox Judaism, for example, there is a law that people must dress "modestly" - but modesty is determined by gender, activity, and location; should women or men be isolated from the other gender, the definition of "modest" changes, based, in part, on anecdotal evidence that (according to a rabbi who taught my 10th grade religion class) women who were in business several thousand years ago had an unfair advantage over men, who were distracted more by women's bare chests than women were by men's bare chests - thus the law about modesty.

A more recent example: look at how teens and young adults dress today, and compare it to how teens and young adults dressed in the 80s, the 70s, the 60s, the 50s... think about the concerns about the Beatles and their "long" hair, Elvis and his gyrating hips, and so on. Times change - but never quite as fast as some people would like, and often too fast for many other people.

How does society define what is moral?

Morality is, I think, often defined based on mores from the previous generation, but actions are based on pushing those morals as far as people can go without being so offensive to the generation from which they learned their morals becoming too upset.

How much of morality is based upon religious beliefs?

It depends on the culture and the people involved - much of US law, for example, was originally based on Judeo-Christian values (and still is), even when it no longer appears to apply or to match the will of the electorate - two examples being abortion and homosexual marriage, both of which are (supposedly) banned by the Bible, but are (or already have) gaining common acceptance despite the collision between moral values and reality.

Does this conflict of views also extend to other types of rights?

I would say, yes. Freedom of speech is an issue often affected by morality vs. legality - choice of terms, location of certain activities, sharing of sensitive data, etc., are affected by the interpretation of legality vs. morality in quite a few places and issues.

Was there ever a time when the mores [definition: The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group] of society is in full agreement with the laws of the area?

Again, yes and no. I think there were times when people said that they were - even believed that they were - but there were always exceptions for "special" circumstances, or accepted side-step solutions for unacceptable behavior and/or circumstances - homes for unwed mothers (populated, in previous decades, by women with mysterious and long-lasting bouts of the "flu"), for example, or, less problematic, the reality behind the aphorism that a newlywed could "do in 7 months what took a cow or countess 9". Other examples also abound - polite circumlocutions for "inappropriate" language, accepted "inappropriate" behavior from certain genders or age groups (e.g. "boys will be boys" types of things) and so on.

Is this disparity increasing, or will the acceptance increase when the mores adjust to the laws?

I think it's the reverse - will the laws adjust to the change in mores? There are quite a few outdated laws that make it illegal to participate in culturally acceptable activities - but the laws have not been changed to meet the times (see abortion, above) because the lawmakers - and the majority of active voters - believe in, and vote to enforce, the older mores.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm probably going to be dinged for "blaming the victim" here, but is it possible that the reason there is a double standard in dress codes might be for the safety of the females? That allowing women to go topless in public just might not be the ticket to reducing the number of sexual assaults? Sure, one could say that "I should have a right to go in public without a shirt." Likewise, I could say that I have a right to walk through a poor neighborhood with a thousand-dollar bill taped to my forehead. Neither of these positions have anything at all to do with reality.

You're right. You are going to get dinged for blaming the victim, and so you should. Sexual assaults are rarely about sex, and tend to be more often about power.

I wonder, also, why you think residents of a poor neighborhood, would not respect your right to own private property.

You certainly seem to be carrying some heavy baggage there.

 

[michaeledward]

Do you think the moral view [definition: of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character] is too ingrained into the collective psyche of society to allow for a wider acceptance of these dress standards (or lack thereof) as set by legal entities?

- Ceicei

Ceicei, I think that in our society, overcoming the ingrained puritanical point of view concerning nudity will be a difficult thing to overcome.

As liberal as I am, I have never been to a nude beach. Don't think I will ever visit one. I think our society is pretty wrapped up in the idea that all nudity is sexual. And I don't see a time when we are going to get past that.

We see similar standards concerning alcohol. As long as we treat it like a drug, rather than a food, we aren't going to be able to get beyond that paradigm.

I think, we should learn to have a greater acceptance of these things; and many of the other puritan roots of our society. But, I don't think we will.

 

[tellner]

There are lots of things which are "too deeply ingrained" to ever happen. Black and White people marrying, women voting, staying in one place and raising grain instead of following the antelope herds, the nuclear family, a Catholic President and executives typing on keyboards like they were secretaries have all been unnatural and unacceptable in their day. Human behavior is incredibly plastic.

Since there are cultures where exposed female breasts are normal and accepted it's not a biological imperative. In some places it's the back of the thighs and knees that's considered naughty. It's just a matter of what people are used to. So it could be changed. Will lots of women run around without shirts if it becomes widely legal? Probably not. On beaches certainly. On really hot days maybe. Working in the garden probably, at least the ones who don't sunburn easily. It will certainly make life a lot easier for nursing mothers. There won't be any more of "Your baby has to eat on a toilet or we're calling the cops." As Martha Stewart would say "And that's a Good Thing."

The more skin you see the less remarkable it is, and the more sure you are to say that most people look better at least a little bit covered up. A Nigerian king some centuries ago forbade the wearing of clothes. He said they added mystery and lewdness to the human body and caused sexual immorality. If you've ever been to a naturist resort you might come to the same conclusion On the downside, millions of boys will have their illusions of gravity-defying hemisperhicality shattered a few years earlier. Progress always comes with a cost :shrug:

There will be a patchwork of laws. San Francisco will not have the same ones as San Antonio. Barring a really serious wave of the pathological variety of reactionary woman-hating fundamentalism the number of places where it's legal will increase slowly but steadily. People will get used to it the same way that looking at breasts recreationally in special bars has gone from barely thinkable to common as dirt in just a couple decades.

Italian law holds (or held) that female nudity is not inherently obscene but that male nudity is because "The male body has the potential to become obscene at any moment."

Bottom line: It's not that big a deal. People aren't hard-wired to consider breasts the same way they do genitals. Heck, they aren't even hard-wired to go simian poo at the sight of the reproductive parts. Topless women won't ever be common, but will become less of a news item. And it won't traumatize children, cause the end of civilization or make people rush out and change their blood type and favorite soft drink. With any luck a lot of men will come to react in a somewhat less Pavlovian fashion to the sight of a breast or the outline of a nipple.

 

[tradrockrat]

You're right. You are going to get dinged for blaming the victim, and so you should. Sexual assaults are rarely about sex, and tend to be more often about power.

I wonder, also, why you think residents of a poor neighborhood, would not respect your right to own private property.

You certainly seem to be carrying some heavy baggage there.

tell ya what - stroll down 34th street in Baltimore with your package hanging out and see how fast your idealistic view of the world ends.

Reality is a whole lot different than what you seem to think it is. There are people in low income areas that would gut you just to find out what is in your wallet, let alone a grand out in the open. I KNOW this for a fact; I know a guy who would do it. They exist. Just like people exist who, seeing a topless woman, would be incited to sexual assault - you know just enough psychology to spout off, but not enough, it seems to see reality. Crimes of premeditated sexual assault may often be based on desires other than sexual, but many crimes of opportunity start from desires other than the one they act on. And honestly - some sexual assaults ARE based upon the desire for sex - it's a fact, deal with it. Many sexual predators carry around a lot of pornography because the sexuality excites them and is very much a part of their trigger to act. This is well known.

Today no one ever wants to blame the victim, but damn it! - sometimes it IS the victims fault for being so stupid! Something so clearly against societies current standards can not help but draw negative responses from others. Sure I'd love to see the day we could all have the freedom to wander around naked / whatever, but that day isn't here yet and the reality is someone raised in this culture / society knows this and is being criminally stupid if they flaunt societies mores that way.

and yes - it is their fault.

To walk down a street in the slums with a wad of cash out is as stupid as walking through a black neighborhood with a KKK outfit on, or pissing on a cop car with the officer inside.

The part that really pisses me off is that walking around topless isn't even in the same league as this and that the societal views are changing. Topless women - as evidenced by the news story that started all of this - is firmly in the grip of P.C. right now, for good or bad. Eventually, it will not be as big of an issue as it is now, but some puritanical remnants and areas of the country will always change slower than others.

BTW - In Austin it's legal for ladies to go topless - very few do except during festivals and such. The local attitudes are very liberal and I love living here because of it, but I guarantee that wandering around ALL of the time topless would cause serious issues and invite violence in certain areas of town.