Vote against nudity double standard

Testing 123..

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, "nudity", is defined as having "uncovered or less than opaquely covered human genitals, pubic areas, the human female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola, or the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. For purposes of this definition, a female breast is considered uncovered if the nipple or areola only are covered." In other words, men naked from the waist up are considered clothed, women naked from the waist up are considered nude, unclothed and in some peoples minds, immoral, even though when we look at the male and the female chest, we see the same things; nipples, areolas, and skin.
We need to stop the double standards. There should be parity and equality in nudity law but there is not. Instead women are penalized, an equal liberty withheld; the freedom to walk, swim and sun without shirts, because of body shape.
For a very long time in Massachusetts, there was no protection for moms who nursed their infants away from home. In fact, Massachusetts was one of the last states to afford any protection for breast-feeding mothers. And today, leave the baby off the breast a little too long without immediately covering herself, and the mother faces possible arrest for indecent exposure.
Making matters worse, a 1988 amendment to the nudity statute rewrote it so that references to the "post-puberta" breast were deleted. Now, an innocent photo of a pre-pubescent girl without a shirt could result in child pornography charges if a jury is able to be convinced that a simple portrait or family snapshot is really erotic.

This double standard is also unfair to teenagers.
Right now, if a teen boy receives and shares an e-mail from a girl showing HER OWN breast in a photo, he may be charged with possession of child pornography. But if a teen girl forwards an e-mail of a boy showing his breast, she faces no such consequence. Girls should have the same freedom to remove their shirts for the sun or for the camera, without reproach. Instead, girls are made to feel dirty and immoral to expose the very same part of their bodies which boys do; this is not equal and it is not right. We need to start thinking differently, and thinking equally. Equal treatment means the right to act equally, to play equally, and to dress equally, regardless of body shape.

I am advocating a world where men and women are treated as equals, and where women are not made to feel shame, humiliation, and suppression of freedom for a behavior that is perfectly legal of the opposite sex.
Women walking publicly without shirts should be as acceptable as men walking this way. It should be as acceptable as women holding positions in all areas of the workplace, including the Military. In a society where men and women do not have all of the same rights, we cannot say that we have reached the highest level of social consciousness.
This is a fight for those who wish for equality. It is about fundamentally holding men and women as equals. Equality may be unwanted to some at first. People may react against equality, as did Governor George Wallace in his 1963 “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” to stop racially integrated schools. But today, there is no one who would even remotely be taken seriously who would stand for segregation.

On November 2, 2010 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts vote for equality.
Vote “to amend the states definition of nudity, so that NO part of the female breast is included, and so that females of any age may be unclothed from the waist up in public, anywhere males may be, including in print and on film”.
This is a step, and an important step, in furthering equality between men and women.

On Amending the Definition of Nudity to Reflect Gender Equality in Pittsfield:
2,934 voted yes 6,855 voted no.
2,934 is great number of people who non-bindingly support amending the definition of nudity to reflect gender equality. On November 3, 2010 The Eagle wrote a press release announcing the results of the vote. They included a female City Councilor who said "imagine seeing your 12 year old
daughter walking around Pittsfield topless"
The title of The Eagles press release was "No on Public Nudity" which misrepresented the purpose of the initiative. They didn't include any persons words who voted in favor.

The 2,934 voters who voted in favor of amending the definition of nudity to reflect gender equality give me confidence that this is an important issue that must be heard.

Imagine a world where little girls weren’t judged for taking their shirts off or made to
feel ashamed of their bodies.
Imagine a world where both boys and girls were safe from judgment and violence regardless of what their gender or body type is.

Would you rather see your child swimming and playing in the sun topless or or on an mtv
music video dancing provocatively in black lingerie with a whip in her hand?

It’s ironic to me that we live in world where it’s not ok for 12 year old girls to be seen swimming and playing in the sun without shirts but it’s perfectly legal for them to be seen modeling make-up products dressed in rubber push-up bras and miniskirts which barely cover their behinds.

I too want children safe but upholding nudity laws which discriminate based on gender actually perpetuates the sexualization of girls and women. By mystifying the female breast people are conditioned to view the female breast as objects of sexual fantasy and taboo. This only exacerbates the lack of safety that our children face!

independent wrote:

what the hell is wrong with people,whats the big deal if women go topless at pontoosuc and onota lakes.i saw a woman in the story saying i got a 13yr old girl that i dont to be topless at lakes,its like look it halfwit,first of all its her decision and not yours to begin with.girls who are in there teens are usually with there parents or friends at pontoosuc and onota lakes and if women at any age are all hot and sweaty and wanna take there tops off should be able too.women been topless at these lakes anyways for over 100yrs when these stupid laws wernt telling you how to dress,plus over 30-40yrs ago women were always having kids at ages 12yrs old and older.i did vote yes with katherines non binding question because she made a very good point

Thank you for your post.
I do see 2,934 votes in favor as a victory.
And now- back to the drawing board..

maybe Ms. Gundelfinger should have put all her energy into running for a political position or office. close to 3000 comments have been posted. so it appears she has admirers/followers/groupies/fa ns and enemies of her cause. she could have campaigned in the nude(illegally of course) and claimed complete transparency honestly.

boy,all i can say is as a woman,ya gotta be really proud of the sisters to let them bounce free in public!

Ms Pittsfield wrote:

Pursuant to Massachusetts law, "nudity", is defined as having "uncovered or less than opaquely covered human genitals, pubic areas, the human female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola, or the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. For purposes of this definition, a female breast is considered uncovered if the nipple or areola only are covered." In other words, men naked from the waist up are considered clothed, women naked from the waist up are considered nude, unclothed and in some peoples minds, immoral, even though when we look at the male and the female chest, we see the same things; nipples, areolas, and skin.
We need to stop the double standards. There should be parity and equality in nudity law but there is not. Instead women are penalized, an equal liberty withheld; the freedom to walk, swim and sun without shirts, because of body shape.
For a very long time in Massachusetts, there was no protection for moms who nursed their infants away from home. In fact, Massachusetts was one of the last states to afford any protection for breast-feeding mothers. And today, leave the baby off the breast a little too long without immediately covering herself, and the mother faces possible arrest for indecent exposure.
Making matters worse, a 1988 amendment to the nudity statute rewrote it so that references to the "post-puberta" breast were deleted. Now, an innocent photo of a pre-pubescent girl without a shirt could result in child pornography charges if a jury is able to be convinced that a simple portrait or family snapshot is really erotic.
This double standard is also unfair to teenagers.
Right now, if a teen boy receives and shares an e-mail from a girl showing HER OWN breast in a photo, he may be charged with possession of child pornography. But if a teen girl forwards an e-mail of a boy showing his breast, she faces no such consequence. Girls should have the same freedom to remove their shirts for the sun or for the camera, without reproach. Instead, girls are made to feel dirty and immoral to expose the very same part of their bodies which boys do; this is not equal and it is not right. We need to start thinking differently, and thinking equally. Equal treatment means the right to act equally, to play equally, and to dress equally, regardless of body shape.
I am advocating a world where men and women are treated as equals, and where women are not made to feel shame, humiliation, and suppression of freedom for a behavior that is perfectly legal of the opposite sex.
Women walking publicly without shirts should be as acceptable as men walking this way. It should be as acceptable as women holding positions in all areas of the workplace, including the Military. In a society where men and women do not have all of the same rights, we cannot say that we have reached the highest level of social consciousness.
This is a fight for those who wish for equality. It is about fundamentally holding men and women as equals. Equality may be unwanted to some at first. People may react against equality, as did Governor George Wallace in his 1963 “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” to stop racially integrated schools. But today, there is no one who would even remotely be taken seriously who would stand for segregation.
On November 2, 2010 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts vote for equality.
Vote “to amend the states definition of nudity, so that NO part of the female breast is included, and so that females of any age may be unclothed from the waist up in public, anywhere males may be, including in print and on film”.
This is a step, and an important step, in furthering equality between men and women.

and what is the big deal about ass cheeks? as long as one covers the sphincter, ass cheeks should be given the same right to sun themselves as breasts.

Instead of fighting for women to have the same rights as men to walk around topless, why don't you fight to make it illegal for men to walk around shirtless? Make EVERYONE cover up instead of letting everyone run around half-naked. Just a thought.

lady wrote:

Instead of fighting for women to have the same rights as men to walk around topless, why don't you fight to make it illegal for men to walk around shirtless? Make EVERYONE cover up instead of letting everyone run around half-naked. Just a thought.

Men aren't going to give up the liberty to swim and sun without a top. I want the sun on my chest more than I want to be shielded from the sight of both mens and womens chests. I align myself with the mainstream, though a disgruntled part of the mainstream, who resents that the female breast is classified as porn while the male breast is pushed on us Summer long and year round in print and on film. This purely cultural belief would quickly be changed by rewriting the legal definition of nudity so that no part of the female breast is included.

Below is what The Eagle published 3 days before the vote. They misrepresented my ballot question in the title and in most of the piece.
"No on public nudity"
"Question 4 in the 3rd Berkshire District
advises legislators to provide equal rules
for men and women on going topless in
Pittsfield. Katherine Gundelfinger, the
advocate for non-binding ballot ques-
tion, sees it as a women’s rights issue,
equating it with the fight for workplace
equality. However, when women were
treated unequally in the workplace they
truly were disenfranchised. Women are not
harmed by having to wear shirts in public
and there are nude beaches in the area for
sunbathing. Brattleboro ,Vermont which
passed an anti-nudity law in 2007 because
the presence of naked men and women
downtown offended residents and visitors
alike, provides an object lessen on the
need for such restrictions. We would just
as soon everyone , men and women, wore
shirts in public at all times. The Eagle urges
a NO vote on Question 4 in the 3rd Berkshire
District."

The Eagle encouraged women to accept inclusion at full nudist resorts and beaches if they want the sun on their breast.
Women who accept this discriminatory legal definition of nudity and attend full nudist clubs, most of whom would be happy to swim and sun unclothed only from the waist up, I believe , put their dignity and the safety of their children at risk.
The link I provide below explains:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofS...

You had your say and the people voted.

Now give it a rest.

enough already wrote:

You had your say and the people voted.
Now give it a rest.

The issue is not dead..
I mentioned dignity in my last post,
A man isn't told he has lost his dignity, self respect or that he is immoral when he takes off his shirt to swim or sun, a woman shouldn't be told she has. I am so surprised that the majority can't see the harm this discriminatory law has created , emotionally and socially , for both sexes.
We cannot pick and choose in what areas we , men and women, will be considered equal. Women cannot say- "We want equality in pay but we want our bodies to be considered more sacred than the male body therefor our breasts must be kept secret from men"..

I was fortunate to receive the following from Carol Agate, who I met through Brian Macquarrie:

"Laws requiring only women to keep their chests covered at public beaches stubbornly remain on the books, even though other laws that distinguish between men and women - limitations on women's work hours, rules that set different ages at which boys and girls may marry, provisions for alimony for wives but not husbands - are being declared unconstitutional at a rapid clip.

The equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment provides that restrictions cannot be imposed on one sex and not the other unless there is good reason. California's standard is higher: The government must show a "compelling reason" for discriminating. Yet the courts keep upholding laws against toplessness without requiring any more justification than the fact that men see women's breasts as sex objects.

The discriminatory nature of these laws has been in effect for only two generations. Until the '30's, men also had to cover up at the beach. The greatest impetus for change was probably the 1934 movie "It Happened One Night," in which Clark Gable took off his shirt. The bare chest suddenly became a symbol of masculinity and men defied the law to emulate him.

On a single day in 1935, 42 men were arrested for being shirtless on a New York bench. After fining eight men $1 each, one judge said, "All of you fellows may be Adonises, but there are many people who object to seeing so much of the human body exposed." The male chest was considered indecent, as is the female chest today.

Widespread disregard of the bathing-suit laws eventually led to their being rescinded. By 1936, the state beach authorities in Long Island had concluded that the male custom of appearing topless was "fully and successfully established." The nearby Westchester County Park Commission decided to retain its ban on toplessness because "the appearance of many unbeautiful 'manly' figures would be ameliorated by even the slight covering that a bathing-suit gives." Later that year, the commission reversed itself after it learned that trunks cost less than a complete suit and it could save money on the suits it bought for rental.

Another important factor was the sympathy of many male judges to the desire of male bathers to swim and sunbathe in freedom and comfort. One judge reportedly rebuked a policeman: "Why bring these cases before me? You know that I will throw them out." The shortage of female judges has handicapped women who have tried to challenge swimwear restrictions.

One court justified California's law with the statement, "Nature, not the legislative body, created the distinction between the portion of the woman's body and that of a man's torso." The court confused the issue. Nature created the distinction, but it was legislatures that imposed restrictions because of that distinction. They said, in effect, that the male body is the norm; the female's, because it is different, must be covered.."

Continued..
"Rescinding these laws would not, as the court seemed to fear, cause men to be filled with uncontrollable lust. When the sight of topless women of all sizes and shapes becomes commonplace, the concept of women's breasts as sex objects will go the way of their legs as sex objects.

For centuries, in the Western world at least, women's legs were considered sexually enticing and had to be kept covered. After stockingless swimsuits were introduced from France in the early 1920's, the issue became a matter of municipal concern in the U.S. resort cities. When Atlantic City decided to keep its ban on bare-legged swimmers, the mayor of nearby Somers Point said they were welcome to his town. Reaction to this invitation was immediate. A newspaper reported:

"The response today turned the bay front into a scene of flashing limbs...and shapely forms. A fringe of trees lining the beach and the Ocean City - Somers Point Bridge were turned into 'bleachers' from which motorists enjoyed the scenery. Traffic along the shore road was tied up during the bathing hour, and there was a shortage of men at church services."

Requiring women to cover their bodies because of men's lust is an unjust imposition anyway, identical in concept, if not extent, to the Muslim requirement that women cover themselves from head to toe in public.

The issue is not trivial. The imposition on women is great, the inconvenience real, the stigma pernicious. The message to women and girls is that their breasts are obscene while those of men are not.

Exaggerated? Suppose many people found excess exposure of black skin offensive, so the law required only blacks to keep their chests covered. After all, to paraphrase the judge quoted earlier, it was nature, not the legislatures,that created the different skin colors. The illogic is self-evident when discussing race, but not when discussing sex.

Where toplessness is concerned, logic flies out the window. "Women have breasts," the courts say, "and men do not." Not true; the dictionary includes men. But even if the definition of "breast" were limited to protrusions, the law would still be entirely sex-based. Many women are virtually flat-chested; many men, especially fat ones, have quite pendulous protrusions. But the flat-chested topless woman is breaking the law, not the pendulous man. It is her sex alone and not her build that makes the law applicable.
Sometimes the law is justified as being a simple, non-discriminatory requirement that all sex organs be covered. But breasts are not sex organs. They are not essential to the process of reproduction; a woman with no breasts can have a baby. Ironically, requiring that breasts be kept covered handicaps their real function. The only reason they are thought of as sex organs is that men find them sexually enticing.
It was not too long ago that the law also attempted to shield children from pregnant teachers. But the Supreme Court held pregnancy to be no grounds for a forced leave of absence. Another court has ruled that unmarried pregnant students cannot be excluded from public schools - not unless unmarried expectant fathers are also excluded. It is time for the same equality to be applied to bathing attire. Whether that is accomplished by allowing all people to go topless or by requiring men to wear tops, the end result will be the same; discarding one more premise of a male-defined society.
Carol Agate is a lawyer who teaches a sex-discrimination course in the UCLA history department.
Los Angeles Times
May 1, 1981
"OK, Men, Cover Your Chests - Or Let Women Sunbathers Go Topless, Too"
Copyright-Carol Agate

No one wants to see your saggy teats. Get over yourself.

You seem to be the only that cares about going topless. It also seems that most women are happy to keep their tops on. Some men do lose their dignity when they don't have a top on. Move to California and you can go topless all you want but what will that do for your life? Probably nothing for you and for most women. Do what some fat women do when they want to lose weight, house clean in the nude around your own kids and your own family members that includes your mother and dad if they are alive. Or you can become a stripper at least you can make some money for yourself plus the men will love and treat you as a equal. There are many jobs women can get that lets you topless. You are defiantly in a different time then most women are in todays world. The vote was in and you lost you can keep trying but I don't think you will ever win women have spoken and the majority of women do not feel like you do! Sorry!!!

Ms Pittsfield wrote:

On Amending the Definition of Nudity to Reflect Gender Equality in Pittsfield:
2,934 voted yes 6,855 voted no.
2,934 is great number of people who non-bindingly support amending the definition of nudity to reflect gender equality. On November 3, 2010 The Eagle wrote a press release announcing the results of the vote. They included a female City Councilor who said "imagine seeing your 12 year old
daughter walking around Pittsfield topless"
The title of The Eagles press release was "No on Public Nudity" which misrepresented the purpose of the initiative. They didn't include any persons words who voted in favor.
The 2,934 voters who voted in favor of amending the definition of nudity to reflect gender equality give me confidence that this is an important issue that must be heard.
Imagine a world where little girls weren’t judged for taking their shirts off or made to
feel ashamed of their bodies.
Imagine a world where both boys and girls were safe from judgment and violence regardless of what their gender or body type is.
Would you rather see your child swimming and playing in the sun topless or or on an mtv
music video dancing provocatively in black lingerie with a whip in her hand?
It’s ironic to me that we live in world where it’s not ok for 12 year old girls to be seen swimming and playing in the sun without shirts but it’s perfectly legal for them to be seen modeling make-up products dressed in rubber push-up bras and miniskirts which barely cover their behinds.
I too want children safe but upholding nudity laws which discriminate based on gender actually perpetuates the sexualization of girls and women. By mystifying the female breast people are conditioned to view the female breast as objects of sexual fantasy and taboo. This only exacerbates the lack of safety that our children face!

i voted for this,i voted yes for the reasons you say right here thats so accurate

I think it is simply about rights. Canada ( some U.S. states) does not discriminate on the issue after a court challenge. However; there are not females walking about topless- although in most areas it would not be an offense to the legal system. The law does not mean modesty has changed- simply what is fair for one gender is fair to the other. I feel it is totally unfair to say a female should work as a stripper ... My opinion this is not a sexual issue as certainly the skimpy tops may create. However; I do agree the people have spoken so compliance is in order.

coyot e wrote:

I think it is simply about rights. Canada ( some U.S. states) does not discriminate on the issue after a court challenge. However; there are not females walking about topless- although in most areas it would not be an offense to the legal system. The law does not mean modesty has changed- simply what is fair for one gender is fair to the other. I feel it is totally unfair to say a female should work as a stripper ... My opinion this is not a sexual issue as certainly the skimpy tops may create. However; I do agree the people have spoken so compliance is in order.

People have spoken in favor of discrimination throughout history. It takes non-compliance for important issues to change.
I thought it was funny hearing people say "there are more important issues to be concerned about' and yet close to 7000 people ran to the polls to check no on equality in recreation.
I think public safety, social and financial security are important issues. The psychology of these issues is behind the question-
"Should the states definition of nudity be amended so that no part of the female breast is included, so to reflect equality?"
7000 people running to the polls to scream no to equality and 3000 people running to the polls to say yes,
shows the importance of this issue.
I am confident that this problem will be resolved in favor of equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that soon females who want it will have the same right as men to swim and sun without a shirts.
I am saddened that children, who are nursed in infancy from a womans breast, are conditioned by society to view womens breasts as objects of sexual fantasy and taboo.
The only difference between the male and the female breast is that the female breast is capable of feeding the human infant , after that, both the male and the female breast are equally appealing to the opposite sex.
It is wrong that if a female takes off her shirt to sun and swim, she can be arrested, her child can be removed from her custody and she may have to register as sex offender for the rest of her life, even though by removing her shirt to sun and swim she has committed no act of violence against another person.

coyot e wrote:

I think it is simply about rights. Canada ( some U.S. states) does not discriminate on the issue after a court challenge. However; there are not females walking about topless- although in most areas it would not be an offense to the legal system. The law does not mean modesty has changed- simply what is fair for one gender is fair to the other. I feel it is totally unfair to say a female should work as a stripper ... My opinion this is not a sexual issue as certainly the skimpy tops may create. However; I do agree the people have spoken so compliance is in order.

People have spoken in favor of discrimination thoughout history. It takes non-compliance for important issues to change.
I thought it was funny hearing people say that 'there are more important issues to be concerned about' yet close to 7000 people ran to the polls to vote against equality in recreation.
I think public safety, personal, social and financial security are important issues. The psychology behind each of these is contained within the question-
"Should the states definition of nudity be amended so that no part of the female breast is included, so as to reflect equality?"
7000 people running to the polls to scream no to equality and 3000 people running to the polls to vote yes shows the importance of this issue.
I am confident that this problem will be resolved in favor of equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that soon females who want to will have the same right as men to swim and sun without shirts.
I am saddened that children who are nursed in infancy from a womens breast are in childhood and beyond conditioned by society to view womens breasts as objects of sexual fantasy and taboo.
It is wrong that if a woman takes off her shirt to swim and sun she can be arrested, her child may be removed from her custody and she may be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life even though she has committed no act of violence against another person.
The only differnce between the male and the female breast is that the female breast is capable of feeding the human infant , after that, both the male and the female breast are equally appealing to the opposite sex.

boobs are gross