Free The Nipple

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a Laconia, New Hampshire city ordinance banning women from appearing topless in public and acknowledged that the law treats men and women differently.

A group with the motto “Free The Nipple” argued that topless bans are discriminatory and violate the Constitution by holding women to a different standard, as men are legally allowed to be shirtless in public.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld their convictions, saying the male and female sexes “are not fungible” and the public exposure of the female breast “almost invariably conveys sexual overtones.”

I’m not going to try to argue that the female breast does not “invariably convey sexual overtones.” For me and many others, it does. My mind translates the image image of a woman’s breast into sexual overtones.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court is right.

But this is not the fault, nor the problem, of women who are demanding rights that are equal to men. Simply because a certain segment of the American public considers the breast a sexualized part of a woman’s anatomy does not mean that she should not enjoy equal protection under the law.

Those of us for whom a female breast conveys sexual overtones simply need to grow up and deal with it. In fact, the female breast is not unlike many other parts of the human anatomy. A short skirt, a plunging neckline, or a form fitting dress also invariably contain sexual overtones. For some, bare feet, tattoos, and even an exposed elbow convey sexual overtones. And yes, for some, the sight of a bare chested man (depending on the condition of his bare chest ) clearly conveys sexual overtones.

Why should the female breast be treated any different?

Besides, there’s no logic behind any of this. On a beach, a woman can legally expose about 90% of her breast so long as the nipple is concealed, which makes absolutely no sense at all. This is not an ordinance against bare female breasts. It’s really an ordinance banning the exposure of female nipples and the area immediately surrounding the nipple.

It’s insanity.

In some Middle Eastern countries, women are forced to wear burkas that cover every inch of their bodies because their entire bodies are perceived to convey sexual overtones. Most Americans find these restrictions reprehensible, but the difference is only in the placement of the legal limit.

Requiring a woman to cover her entire body?

No way. Patriarchal and extreme.

Requiring a woman to cover her nipple and a 2-3 inch diameter of skin around the nipple?

Completely reasonable.

I’m not advocating for public nudity. I simply want and expect equal protection under the law. If a man can expose his chest in public, so, too should a woman if she so chooses. If you can’t accept this, then men need to cover their chests, too. Or at least their nipples and a certain degree of skin around the nipples.

Or we could just do this:

If the sight of a female breast gets you all hot and bothered, grow up and deal with it. Look away if you’re offended. But deal with it. You can look at things that make you think about sex without immediately requiring sex or being transformed into some kind of sexual deviant.

Fifty years ago the sight of an interracial couple offended some Americans. Twenty years ago the sight of two men or two women kissing in public sent shock waves through the systems of some people.

Both of these things still offend some bigots today.

The exposure of the female breast is no different, Yes, at this moment in history, in this particular country, the exposure of the female breast conveys sexual overtones for some people.

Too bad. Get over it.

Women deserve the same rights and privileges as men, even if such privileges makes some Americans think about sex.