Posted on 01/22/2005 1:05:48 PM PST by Ramonan
SACRAMENTO — As a Ventura County public defender, Liana Johnsson has handled many life-changing cases, but her biggest public crusade these days has been going topless.
For months, Johnsson has been fighting to allow topless women at California beaches and parks.
A group of lawyers, at Johnsson's request, has asked the Legislature to make topless sunbathing legal, saying the ban is the last criminal sanction that treats women differently than men.
The new movement has urgency: Because of a December court ruling, Johnsson and other attorneys contend, women convicted of indecent exposure could find themselves listed as sex offenders under Megan's Law, alongside rapists and child molesters.
The office of state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said women should not be concerned about being identified as sex offenders, given that California law considers topless sunbathing to be indecent but not lewd. Lawmakers may soon be tackling the issue to remove any chance of misinterpretation by local prosecutors.
Before her idea reached Sacramento this week, Johnsson presented her arguments to more than 400 delegates at an October bar association convention. She flashed images on a screen of the big-breasted male evildoer from "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me," as she spoke.
The issue goes beyond topless sunbathing. The conference lobbyist, Randy Perry with Aaron Read & Associates, questioned whether fraternity boys mooning out a car window or golfers caught urinating in the woods would also be required to register as sex offenders now, if convicted of indecent exposure.
"What we're talking about is common sense," said Perry.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
But consider this - why is it presumed that women lack any visual interest in the male form? If the problem is the stirring of sexual interest, then both sexes should be forbidden from going topless.
Uhh... could possibly have something to do with the, ahem, difference between the chest of a woman and the chest of a man?
ok
See post number 83.
Fine with me.
Ubangies in Africa find it perfectly normal. Convenient for children, too.
Of course, those indulging may need to hire body guards to fend off the . . . fixated . . . and obsessed . . . But, hey--there's a lot crazier stuff going on in the name of equality.
It would improve the scenery. In SOME cases.
Of course, if they want to look like elderly Ubangies when they reach that age . . . it's their business.
Actually, I think there's some tribes in Africa where the women attended their local Assembly of God church topless.
Sadly, I wouldn't recommend it around SOME . . . uhhh . . . who claim to be uhhhh, [choke], uhhhh, "ministers." Unless they really like that kind of hands-on 'ministry' and are consenting adults?
Oh, Dear. How low we have sunk!
There's dialing Moscow and then there's dialing Carlsbad Caverns.
What is modesty, anyway?
Foremost and best, an attitude of heart.
I suspect these women eager to bouncy-around
without 'holds-em-from-foppin'
would be the first to scream at someone on the crowded bus or train venturing a 'friendly' nuzzle. Of course, it WOULD be the man's total fault, wouldn't it?
Or would it.
Perhaps only at beaches? I suspect beach attendance by middle-aged and older dreamers would markedly increase--to view the beaches only, of course . . . depending on their pronunciation.
My earlier deceased father-in-law reportedly was often heard to remark . . .
"I'd love to walk barefoot across an acre of those."
So, hey, Tootsie, help yourself. Spare me the tassles, please.
The only ones I'd be interested in, anyway, would be my wife's. And two handsful are quite sufficient. I only have 2 hands.
Last time we went to Blacks Beach, there was a family of four in the nude on a blanket about ten yards past the nude beach warning sign. Mom and dad were twenty something. There was a little girl and boy around three and five playing in the nude. We walked on down the beach and back. As we passed the family, I looked over towards them and they were getting ready to leave. The woman was pulling up her pants and when she saw me looking in her direction, her reaction was to cross her legs and put her hand over her crotch. I started laughing. She had been nude in public for at least an hour, but when pulling up her pants she became shy.
Is she the one who liked to run out on the field and kiss baseball players?
We have to take the good along with the ... bad.
I just had to turn my monitor around for that one.
I didnt know the "smileys" were DU style, I stole them from another post here.
No, that is NOT what I stated. I stated that all religions are EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. The Constitution goes out of it's way to make it very clear that NO church shall be given a position of priviledge, or government endorsement. There's a mighty big difference here.
Now, do I want women to parade around topless in my grocery store? No, not necessarily; but do I think they should be arrested for doing so? Nope. If it's legal for a man to walk around without a shirt; it should be legal for a woman to do the same. That's equality. Just as some men are too modest to go about in public without a shirt, so women are allowed (and should be expected to maintain) the modesty to cover up. But doing so by legal means is not the fair way to do things.
This depends upon where you are, state laws, city ordinances ect. I find it unfair to have one set of laws for men, and a different set for women. Now, if a man is modest and chooses to wear a T-shirt to the beach; that's fine. By the same token, if he chooses to take the T-shirt off because it's really hot, he's fine. But if a woman does exactly the same thing, she goes to jail. That is unfair.
If we twist the situation around a bit; if a man went bottom-less; he would be arrested for indecent exposure, and he should be. If a woman does exactly the same thing, she would be arrested for the same charge; and both should be fined the same amount. That is fair.
If women are fined for going topless; then men should be fined for wearing dress socks and shoes with bermuda shorts at the beach.
I lived in CA from 77-90 So unless they changed. There are Miles & Miles & Miles of bathing suit optional beaches. Other that a few state & city beaches. Were tops & bottoms
are needed. the rest of the coastline is open.
One time in Santa Cruz. A bunch of woman were marching down the streets topless. Protesting not being allowed to go topless at the beach and wanted to be arrested. They
were informed they were not violating any city laws. They only needed a top at the beach in town.
Why you ask. Because the coastline there in town is a state beach.
What is it with all these Lib’s that need to be Nude all the time.
Thats a Sodomite beach. You don't want to go there.
And what do you think every nude beach attracts ?
Why stop there then. There’s no logical distinction between genitalia and other erotic body parts that makes then “indecent” to publicly expose other than the degree that they exceed community standards. So if you’re comparing stopping before breasts to the Taliban, why not go a step further than that? Why prohibit genitalia from being shown? After all, ” they are nothing more, nor anything less than what erotic thoughts YOU place upon them.”
FWIW, I’d personally like to see this opened up on beaches, but I respect others who don’t feel uncomfortable.
I support this agenda only for women with well-shaped and well-toned breasts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.