No Victim, No Crime. Right!?
Okay, voluntarist and anarchist, it's time to represent.
My home state of Tennessee remains one of those states where women are absolutely prohibited from publicly exposing parts of their breasts (save for a few exceptions like when breast feeding). Here's the text of the Tennessee law in question, though some other states have very similar laws:
39-13-511. Public indecency Indecent exposure.
(a) (1) (A) A person commits the offense of public indecency who, in a public place, as defined in subdivision (a)(2)(B), knowingly or intentionally:
***
(ii) Appears in a state of nudity;
***
(B) A person does not violate subdivision (a)(1)(A) if the person makes intentional and reasonable attempts to conceal the person from public view while performing an excretory function, and the person performs the function in an unincorporated area of the state.
(2) As used in subdivision (a)(1):
(A) "Nudity" or "state of nudity" means the showing of the bare human male or female genitals or pubic area with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of the areola, or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. "Nudity" or "state of nudity" does not include a mother in the act of nursing the mother's baby...
These laws are almost certainly unconstitutional, yet they are still on the books and are still enforced.
Notice how completely arbitrary the Tennessee law is (as are most laws that criminalize acts with no victim): First, it's only WOMEN, and not men, who are obligated under threat of criminal punishment to prevent their areola from being observed.
Second, it's not the female breast in general that's considered "indecent" but apparently only certain aspects of it--namely, the color of the areola. After all, given that any sufficiently "opaque" covering will avoid criminal prosecution, it's apparently not the SHAPE of the areola that's offensive, just its color. So, walking about in a shirt like this, where the areola and nipple are clearly discernable, is apparently NOT "indecent":
Nor is "side boob" indecent:
Nor "under boob":
Nor even this "nip slip" (since it's not the nipple itself that offends the law but rather only the surrounding areola):
However, wearing THIS would be enough to get you arrested for "indecent" exposure:
Why? Because the color of the areola is visible (the fabric is not sufficiently "opaque").
I defy anyone to articulate any principled, non-arbitrary reason for criminalizing the clothing in the last picture above but not the clothing (or lack thereof) in any of the prior ones.
Criminalizing body parts should be offensive to most everyone but especially the anarchists and voluntarist who are so present here on Steemit. No victim, no crime. Right?!
I invite everyone, whether male or female, to resist these immoral laws as unprincipled, arbitrary and repressive. You can show solidarity by posting a picture here on Steemit displaying your own areola. And, what better day to do that than tomorrow 8/28--National Go Topless Day?
If you decide to participate, please tag your picture #freetheareola. And, if you're a woman, be sure to tag it #nsfw: Displaying your female areola on Steemit won't get you arrested, but it may get you down voted if you don't tag it properly.
Here's my (early) contribution to the cause:
All photos, save the last, are by me. The subject in all photos, save the last, is @steemed-open.
These are male nipples. Use it to cover female nipples and everything will be fine :P
damn right! :D
The indecency part is a belief imposed by men mostly stemming from inadequacy and hate for their mothers. Also, the guy above needs to put a damn shirt on before any kids see that :)
It's the same as muslim women having to cover their entire bodies out of 'indecency' (although obviously to a much lesser extent).
We need to take a stand and keep people safe! How can we be safe with arbitrary pieces of skin exposed for the world to see? What are we, animals?! I think this is the perfect time to use violence to get people to do things I want them to do, since I am a sorry excuse for a human being in a position of authority who is uncomfortable with our humanity. Now, obey my words written on paper, and remember, it's for your own good, Sean! XD
Hello from a former Tennessean. Extending a welcome to visit Chile.
Thanks for taking the time to point out yet another hypocrisy of the state
the last boobs was bare boobs.
Thanks for this interesting post, from the voluntarist and anarchist viewpoint.
I wonder if you might have some thoughts on this, from an evolutionary psychology angle. Is there a difference between female breasts and genitals, from this perspective, or are they in the same category?
Great question.
Well, I think there's little doubt that most men and many women find many female breasts to be arousing, at least under the right circumstances. And, I suppose there's some evolutionary component to that, or at least it seems likely. This conclusion is somewhat supported by the research on the subject.
But the same is also true in the opposite direction: Many women are as aroused by a burly, muscular exposed man-chest as men are by exposed female breasts.
Whether we've evolved to find these things arousing or not probably doesn't matter. I suppose the real question for society is whether the fact that some people find certain body parts arousing makes those body parts "indecent". After all, many find hands, feet, legs, ears, buttocks, necks, stomachs, hips and even faces to be arousing. Is it my problem the you find my legs arousing? Should I be forced to cover myself so you don't become aroused? If so, why? And, if not, then how/why are female areola qualitatively different from my legs or male areola? These are the questions that advocates of these laws need to answer.
But, there are no principled answers to such questions. Singling out women's areola for regulation is simply another form of male oppression and female shaming.
For me it's backs...
I like this idea, but I don't think anyone wants to see my areola... ;)
I'm behind the cause here. I generally like wearing clothes, but I hate that I have to and that there isn't a smooth landing if I was feeling frisky today.
In a free society these things will be handled in a decentralized way. People will judge you (rate you, whatever) based on whatever they find appropriate, and a norm for that community can develop.
And of course different communities can have different norms, and people will generally live around other people who share their preferences.
When we (voluntaryists) oppose clothing laws, a lot of people will think that's the same as being a nudist. But really that's not at all the case. Personally I might like that, but even if you have a very strict preference, voluntaryism is the only way to actually get that. Because as you point out, when you have these black and white laws backed up by punishment, there are various loopholes you can find that satisfy the letter of the law but are still plenty "indecent" to the conservative folks who don't like it. A voluntary decentralized mechanism allows them to fully express their judgment, and generally makes it easier to establish communities with people who agree with them.
Yes! Totally agree.
Way to go Sean!