Topless Women Not Breaking The Law, Says NYPD

[Darken12]

Recently, the NYPD has been instructed not to arrest topless women if they are obeying the law. As of May, breast exposure is not considered public lewdness, indecent exposure, or disorderly conduct. In a joyous moment for gender equality, the NYPD is reminded that women may go topless in any place that allows men to go shirtless.

As explained in this NY Times article [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/nyregion/a-police-roll-call-reminder-women-may-go-topless.html?_r=1&], all 34,000 officers were informed of this ruling in the 10 consecutive roll calls where it was broadcast.

Furthermore, even if a topless display draws significant attention, officers are to ?give a lawful order to disperse the entire crowd and take enforcement action? instead of punishing the woman in question.

The NYT article goes into greater depth about the specific case of a woman who performed topless protests being carried in for psychiatric evaluation, but that's not particularly relevant to the topic in general.

That said, let us hope this encourages further steps towards gender equality.

 

[Devil's Due]

That's cool, I'm glad people can do more of whatever they want. Just be warned that you have no right to tell people to stop staring if you do this, since where a person may look in public is just as free as your right to be topless.

Now, if I may make a plea: please keep your shirt on, I hate seeing people with their shirts off, regardless of gender. Especially at the gym. I hate the guys at the gym and their shirts v. skin basketball matches, always trying to show off as much skin as possible than the next guy */grumbles and walks off snarling*

EDIT: Also, of all the cold cities in the US...

EDIT 2: You know what? MAKE EVERYONE WEAR SHIRTS. REGARLDESS OF GENDER.
[small]especially at the gym[/small]

 

[Darken12]

EDIT 2: You know what? MAKE EVERYONE WEAR SHIRTS. REGARLDESS OF GENDER.
[small]especially at the gym[/small]

As a person who is very put off by nudity and shirtlessness, I still can't agree with you at all. I believe that people have a right to dress however they like. Just because I'm made extremely uncomfortable by their taste in clothes (or the lack thereof), it's my obligation to endure it, not theirs to humour me. Though I do sympathise with the sentiment.

 

[Devil's Due]

If you took my last edit seriously mate, you probably haven't been here that long or my text was lacking the necessary subtle-ness But it's all good!

 

[Darken12]

If you took my last edit seriously mate, you probably haven't been here that long or my text was lacking the necessary subtle-ness But it's all good!

I invoke Poe's Law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law] in my defence.

 

[Yuuki]

That's awesome, I'm very curious as to what other hilarious things will happen in the name of gender equality. I reckon men should be allowed to walk into women's restrooms (and vice versa), I mean we're all the same right?

By far the most ironic/paradoxical thing about this is that if topless women DID start walking down the streets and near school/residential zones on particularly hot days, most of the negative retaliation would come from...you guessed it, other women hahaha. I'm betting on it!

That's cool, I'm glad people can do more of whatever they want. Just be warned that you have no right to tell people to stop staring if you do this, since where a person may look in public is just as free as your right to be topless.

Now, if I may make a plea: please keep your shirt on, I hate seeing people with their shirts off, regardless of gender. Especially at the gym. I hate the guys at the gym and their shirts v. skin basketball matches, always trying to show off as much skin as possible than the next guy */grumbles and walks off snarling*

EDIT: Also, of all the cold cities in the US...

EDIT 2: You know what? MAKE EVERYONE WEAR SHIRTS. REGARLDESS OF GENDER.
[small]especially at the gym[/small]

So to conclude, you're NOT glad people can "do more of whatever they want"
Otherwise you wouldn't be making such a plea and wouldn't express your hate for people who choose not to wear tops
edit: Wait, that entire post was sarcasm? I totally missed it *shrug*

 

[Ryotknife]

Im just thinking how traumatized males are going to be when they see an elderly woman whose breasts point all the way south.

I hope the psych ward in NYC has plenty of room!

 

[Darken12]

Im just thinking how traumatized males are going to be when they see an elderly woman whose breasts point all the way south.

Slightly less traumatised than when they see an elderly man whose breasts point all the way south? Just a wild guess.

 

[Ryotknife]

Im just thinking how traumatized males are going to be when they see an elderly woman whose breasts point all the way south.

Slightly less traumatised than when they see an elderly man whose breasts point all the way south? Just a wild guess.

? why would they be less traumatized. There is no logic behind that statement. Although im of the opinion that everyone should wear a dang shirt.

This decision by NYC is wacko (not surprising as this is NYC),if exposing breasts is not considered a lewd/indecent act, then neither should nudity.

whatever though, its NYC, this wont fly in most of the US.

 

[Darken12]

? why would they be less traumatized. There is no logic behind that statement. Although im of the opinion that everyone should wear a dang shirt.

Some (straight) men would be less traumatised if the sagging boobage belonged to a woman. Not all of them, though, I suppose.

This decision by NYC is wacko (not surprising as this is NYC),if exposing breasts is not considered a lewd act, then neither should nudity.

You do realise that mammaries are not genitals, right? They are secondary sexual characteristics, not primary, and some men (a not insignificant number) have a pretty significant cleavage going on, whether it's because they work out a lot and their pecs are huge or because they're very overweight. And there's no lewdness in a man exposing his breasts in public (which, of course, are just as capable of lactation as women. Male galactorrhea is a well documented condition). So if men are allowed to parade their breasts around as they see fit (and those breasts can have the same size and functionality as a woman's), then I fail to see why it's lewd if women do it.

Captcha: be nice. I'm trying, Captcha. I'm trying.

 

[Ryotknife]

? why would they be less traumatized. There is no logic behind that statement. Although im of the opinion that everyone should wear a dang shirt.

Some (straight) men would be less traumatised if the sagging boobage belonged to a woman. Not all of them, though, I suppose.

This decision by NYC is wacko (not surprising as this is NYC),if exposing breasts is not considered a lewd act, then neither should nudity.

You do realise that mammaries are not genitals, right? They are secondary sexual characteristics, not primary, and some men (a not insignificant number) have a pretty significant cleavage going on, whether it's because they work out a lot and their pecs are huge or because they're very overweight. And there's no lewdness in a man exposing his breasts in public (which, of course, are just as capable of lactation as women. Male galactorrhea is a well documented condition). So if men are allowed to parade their breasts around as they see fit (and those breasts can have the same size and functionality as a woman's), then I fail to see why it's lewd if women do it.

Captcha: be nice. I'm trying, Captcha. I'm trying.

Guy cleavage isn't anywhere as big as comparable sized women, nor do they sag as much. Overweight women will have larger breasts than overweight men of the same size. Besides, both should cover up, at least in public.

and honestly whether they are genitals or not matters little to none, only the association with that part of the body. The butt is not a genital either, yet that is still illegal. There is no logic behind their decision. If exposing breasts is fine, then so should nudity. Allowing women to expose their breasts is in itself a double standard.

Honestly, to say this is a win for "gender equality" spits in the face of actual issues that both sides suffer and is incredibly insulting. Someone's inability to be bare chested is so laughably insignificant compared to earning gap, child custody, employment, and other issues that have ACTUAL negative impacts on people's lives.

 

[Sandernista]

That's awesome, I'm very curious as to what other hilarious things will happen in the name of gender equality. I reckon men should be allowed to walk into women's restrooms (and vice versa), I mean we're all the same right?

It's not illegal, and if the men's bathroom is full I will go and use the female one. I don't see any problem with that at all.

 

[Darken12]

Guy cleavage isn't anywhere as big as comparable sized women, nor do they sag as much. Overweight women will have larger breasts than overweight men of the same size. Besides, both should cover up, at least in public.

They very much do, actually. Do you want me to post pictures? Because I can do that very easily. Sure, a woman of the same weight as a man might have larger breasts (emphasis on might, breast size depends on many factors, not just gender and weight), but an overweight man most definitely has larger breasts than a skinny woman. So why is he allowed to walk around topless while she isn't?

and honestly whether they are genitals or not matters little to none, only the association with that part of the body. The butt is not a genital either.

It's perfectly okay to show butt so long as you don't expose your genitals while doing so. Thongs are considered perfectly adequate according to the law.

 

[Ryotknife]

Good idea. We'll get on NYPD to implement a law that says "You must be at least this attractive to go topless in public."

Nice try, meant both sexes should cover up in public. Not to mention attractiveness can not be quantified.

Are you kidding? How can you possibly care about such minutiae as wage gaps, child custody and employment when there are children STARVING in Africa? God, first world problems or what.

Wait, wait, forget that. How small-minded can you be, to obsess over silly little things like children starving in Africa when the sun is dying AS WE SPEAK, moving towards its inevitable death, and with the death of the sun the planet will grow cold and empty of life, and be just another barren rock floating without meaning through the endless expanse of space. Why does no one seem to care about that?

Africa is not our country, and the sun will likely die millions of years after humanity dies. But nice attempt at derailing. please try to stay on topic.

 

[Yuuki]

That's awesome, I'm very curious as to what other hilarious things will happen in the name of gender equality. I reckon men should be allowed to walk into women's restrooms (and vice versa), I mean we're all the same right?

It's not illegal, and if the men's bathroom is full I will go and use the female one. I don't see any problem with that at all.

Perhaps if it was empty when you went in, but are you going to tell me with a straight face that if you walked into a women's restroom while it had a bunch of women in there they'd be totally fine with it?

I'm aware it's not technically illegal, but if you didn't immediately leave then at least one of the women would try to call police/security to get you seized on grounds of being a sexual predator (even though you're not).

Anyone who finds a guy in a women's bathroom is going to judge you on the fucking spot no matter what your reasons may be, it could really suck!
Obviously if a woman was found in a men's bathroom then guys would be quite polite to her, asking if she was confused/lost. Or if she was really desperate to use the toilet, they'd most likely even let her use it. But in the opposite situation I guarantee you at least some degree of shit will hit the fan if women are around, beware!

 

[Ryotknife]

They very much do, actually. Do you want me to post pictures? Because I can do that very easily. Sure, a woman of the same weight as a man might have larger breasts (emphasis on might, breast size depends on many factors, not just gender and weight), but an overweight man most definitely has larger breasts than a skinny woman. So why is he allowed to walk around topless while she isn't?

shifting goalposts, I said two people of the same size. Also, its because there is no stigma with male breasts. If stigma with genitalia because of its sexual association is alright, then stigma with non-genitalia should also be alright because of its sexual association. There is no logic in fighting one specific case of this stigma while preserving the other stigmas that fit the exact same criteria.

I would have more respect for this decision if nudity was allowed, because at least then their logic is consistent.

 

[Darken12]

Hmmm, maybe there should be a "cup size limit" for both men and women. So if an officer isn't sure, he can stop the topless person on the street and politely ask them to try on a C cup or something, and of it fits ... on go the handcuffs!

Or people could just stop obsessing about what other people wear - or don't wear, for that matter.

Hah! Well said. They can have a little holster for the bra and everything.

Stop obsessing about what other people wear or don't wear? Clearly you are insane. Since facial hair is also a secondary sexual characteristic, I'm going to go around with a micrometer and report people with more than 0.3 inches of facial hair as lewd.

shifting goalposts, I said two people of the same size. Also, its because there is no stigma with male breasts. If stigma with genitalia is alright, then stigma with non-genitalia should also be alright. There is no logic in fighting one specific case of this stigma while preserving the other stigmas that fit the exact same criteria.

Yes, I know you said that. And with two people of the same size, the man can still have bigger breasts than the woman (because, as I said before, breast size depends on more than gender and weight). I then speculated that, even if we were to concede that overweight women have larger breasts than overweight men, there is still a significant number of men with bigger breasts than a significant number of women, and they get to display their huge racks around freely. So, logically, the problem cannot be with the breasts themselves.

Now, if you're arguing from the point of traditionalism... well, thank goodness not all of us are traditionalists. Some of us embrace change and progress.

 

[Ryotknife]

Hmmm, maybe there should be a "cup size limit" for both men and women. So if an officer isn't sure, he can stop the topless person on the street and politely ask them to try on a C cup or something, and of it fits ... on go the handcuffs!

Or people could just stop obsessing about what other people wear - or don't wear, for that matter.

Hah! Well said. They can have a little holster for the bra and everything.

Stop obsessing about what other people wear or don't wear? Clearly you are insane. Since facial hair is also a secondary sexual characteristic, I'm going to go around with a micrometer and report people with more than 0.3 inches of facial hair as lewd.

shifting goalposts, I said two people of the same size. Also, its because there is no stigma with male breasts. If stigma with genitalia is alright, then stigma with non-genitalia should also be alright. There is no logic in fighting one specific case of this stigma while preserving the other stigmas that fit the exact same criteria.

Yes, I know you said that. And with two people of the same size, the man can still have bigger breasts than the woman (because, as I said before, breast size depends on more than gender and weight). I then speculated that, even if we were to concede that overweight women have larger breasts than overweight men, there is still a significant number of men with bigger breasts than a significant number of women, and they get to display their huge racks around freely. So, logically, the problem cannot be with the breasts themselves.

Now, if you're arguing from the point of traditionalism... well, thank goodness not all of us are traditionalists. Some of us embrace change and progress.

don't care about tradition, but this decision does not help society in any way, shape, or form and is therefore useless.

I also recognize that change for the sake of change (rather than progress) is extremely dangerous. Such attitude is what first started the downfall of the US educational system with the No Child Left Behind Act.