Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact

[roo_ster]

Does someone think that "anal fissure" == "butt crack"?

Not I, but you never know about some folks.

[Balog]

Roo: I'm confused by your statement. Are you saying the matter at hand (public dress codes) are not related to clothing, or that clothing is not related to speech?

[Perd Hapley]

Those busy bodies who passed this ordinance probably would support something like a cleavage police. I've been trying to use breasts as a comparison to point out a logical hole in fistfuls argument. If he can compare visible boxers to public indecency how can you not come to the same conclusion about women who wear revealing tops which actually exposes skin. I think he's just dodging the question because he enjoys those revealing tops as much as I do and doesn't want to admit.

Why would I not want to admit that I enjoy revealing tops? I am a man, so why would I even have to admit it? It is assumed.

But did I say I opposed an anti-cleavage law? Let's just say I don't see it happening.

Is there any logical link between a saggy pants ban and a cleavage ban? I'll answer that by pointing out that I've never seen skid-marks in a woman's cleavage.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm saying it because it might happen. http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/article/1022385--board-runs-afoul-of-education-act-with-prayer-services

So that's a yes to the slippery slope, and then what's the link have to do with anything?

[Perd Hapley]

Uh Huh.

You were pretty clear.

CNYCacher pointed out your misunderstanding.

Now where did I talk about squeezing anyone out of society?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm still waiting for anyone to define how 1. clothing choice is not speech and how 2. infringement against a Constitutionally specified right should not be held to the "strict scrutiny" legal standard.

I have already informed you that the First does not automatically protect any form of expression. You have failed to inform us on why this law does not meet strict scrutiny.

[Perd Hapley]

Another odd thing about public indecency and breast is that in 45 states breast feeding in public is 100% legal!
A woman is pulling out her bare breast, in public and its legal!!!

I also think it's pretty obvious that babies should not be regarded as clothing. If a breast is exposed enough for a public nudity or indecent exposure charge, the presence of nursing baby should not make a difference. This should be obvious to anyone with a pulse.

I was joking at first when I asked if you where sexist, but as a male this is starting to sound sexist.

A sexist is a person that regards sexual differences as real, important, and worthy of some recognition by society. A non-sexist is someone that believes sexual differences are no more significant than skin color. Not being entirely divorced from reality, I am proud to call myself a sexist, which is to say a realist. There is no need for sexism in the matter of flashing your under-wear clad undercarriage, though. It should be illegal for both sexes. Of course, I said that already.

[KD5NRH]

I also think it's pretty obvious that babies should not be regarded as clothing. If a breast is exposed enough for a public nudity or indecent exposure charge, the presence of nursing baby should not make a difference. This should be obvious to anyone with a pulse.

In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.

[seeker_two]

In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.

...and this is another reason I love Texas..... 

[Seenterman]

I also think it's pretty obvious that babies should not be regarded as clothing. If a breast is exposed enough for a public nudity or indecent exposure charge, the presence of nursing baby should not make a difference. This should be obvious to anyone with a pulse.

No sure I understand you; You'd make women nursing their babies in public illegal and equal to public indecency?

There is no need for sexism in the matter of flashing your under-wear clad undercarriage, though. It should be illegal for both sexes. Of course, I said that already.

So you'd actually want the police ticketing women who show bra and thong straps?

Wow and I though some of my catholic school friends were puritanical, you got nothing on them. I think Iran has some laws like these 

In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.

So a woman walking around bare chested would be legal? I knew there was another reason people loved Texas so much.

[KD5NRH]

So a woman walking around bare chested would be legal?

Cities might have more specific ordinances, but outside of town, the worst I could see it getting would be an easily beaten misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.

[Perd Hapley]

No sure I understand you; You'd make women nursing their babies in public illegal and equal to public indecency?

It certainly ought to be illegal, if we're not allowing breasts to be exposed for any other reason. How does feeding an infant make it OK to expose oneself in public? Explain that.

So you'd actually want the police ticketing women who show bra and thong straps?

Not at all what I said, and I already gave an answer to that. But then, why should you bother to read what you're responding to?

[Perd Hapley]

In Texas, among other places, the baby is irrelevant; indecent exposure is specific to the anus and genitals.

B-b-b-but-but, you can't differentiate between different parts of the body! That's hypocritical!!

[MicroBalrog]

B-b-b-but-but, you can't differentiate between different parts of the body! That's hypocritical!!

Sure. But then political compromise is awesome like that.

[MrsSmith]

It certainly ought to be illegal, if we're not allowing breasts to be exposed for any other reason. How does feeding an infant make it OK to expose oneself in public? Explain that.

Because, Fistful, feeding an infant is the inherent purpose of breasts and the most natural thing in the world! The "sexual" aspect is secondary. Kind of like a mouth is used for eating/speaking/taking in air, but is also used for sexual gratification. Yet exposing one's mouth isn't in any way wrong, though it ought to be for some.

Bottom line, I don't really care what anyone wears. If we all wore the same style of clothing in the same fashion, who would we have to laugh at? Come on!

[Perd Hapley]

Because, Fistful, feeding an infant is the inherent purpose of breasts and the most natural thing in the world! The "sexual" aspect is secondary. Kind of like a mouth is used for eating/speaking/taking in air, but is also used for sexual gratification. Yet exposing one's mouth isn't in any way wrong, though it ought to be for some.

That doesn't answer the question. The question is, if there's a reason why breasts have to be covered, how does feeding a child overrule that? You can't compare it to the mouth, because there's no taboo against showing one's mouth in public. And most people don't use their backsides for sex, but they are still forbidden from showing them to the public.

It is perfectly innocent and natural to breastfeed, but so are sex and sex organs. The question to ask ourselves is, "What is behind this proscription against nudity, and how would breast-feeding circumvent it?"

[MicroBalrog]

So, what of the jurisdictions that don't mandate covering one's breasts at all?

[Perd Hapley]

I've been meaning to say that I think most of you who disagree with the Collinsville law are raising some valid points, and I can see your side of the argument. There's been a little hyperventilating about burqas and other nonsense, but most of you seem concerned about how a like like the present one could lead to bad consequences, and I respect that.

[Perd Hapley]

So, what of the jurisdictions that don't mandate covering one's breasts at all?

What about them?

[MicroBalrog]

What about them?

Prohibiting exposed breasts does not seem to be an ubiquitous value in Western civilization.

But even if we accept - for the purpose of mental exercise - that indecent exposure laws are a generally morally tenable idea, it is their purpose to prohibit exposure due to its sexual overtones. Breastfeeding one's child is not a sexual activity - unless someone is seriously perverted in many creepy ways. Because of its generally non-sexual nature, it's often exempted from laws which intend to 'protect' individuals from being exposed to sexual activity or organs against their will.

[Balog]

So that's a yes to the slippery slope, and then what's the link have to do with anything?

A majority Muslim community imposing their religious standards on non-Muslims doesn't relate to a discussion of how a majority Muslim community might use a bad law such as this to impose their religious standards? You're being intentionally obtuse now.

I have already informed you that the First does not automatically protect any form of expression. You have failed to inform us on why this law does not meet strict scrutiny.

Oh, wow, thanks so much for clearing that up for me. And if you'll read my posts, you'd see that I have.

[Perd Hapley]

A majority Muslim community imposing their religious standards on non-Muslims doesn't relate to a discussion of how a majority Muslim community might use a bad law such as this to impose their religious standards? You're being intentionally obtuse now.

You're being obtuse for even bringing Muslims into this.

Prohibiting exposed breasts does not seem to be an ubiquitous value in Western civilization.

And?

But even if we accept - for the purpose of mental exercise - that indecent exposure laws are a generally morally tenable idea, it is their purpose to prohibit exposure due to its sexual overtones. Breastfeeding one's child is not a sexual activity - unless someone is seriously perverted in many creepy ways. Because of its generally non-sexual nature, it's often exempted from laws which intend to 'protect' individuals from being exposed to sexual activity or organs against their will.

Walking down the street is not sexual, either. You may need to re-evaluate your understanding of the reasons for anti-nudity laws.

[MicroBalrog]

Walking down the street is not sexual, either. You may need to re-evaluate your understanding of the reasons for anti-nudity laws.

Sure. But sexual organs are, uh, sexual. Walking down the street with said organs visible is seen by some misguided people as a form of sexual assault. Exemptions are made for a small subset of activities.

We know this.

[Perd Hapley]

Ok, so nudity doesn't have to be sexually motivated to be considered wrong or illegal. You've successfully erased the false distinction in your analysis. Congratulations.

[Balog]

You're being obtuse for even bringing Muslims into this.

Bull and you know it. If you propose a community can regulate dress codes, and their are examples of Muslim communities imposing their religious dictates on society at large, then it damn well is relevant.