Question on appropriateness...

[AddyCD]

Hi all,
I am a crossdresser. I have no plans to transition to female in any sense. Anyway I have a neighbor who is a pre-op ts. She identifies as female (with female name) and is always around in feminine clothes. So I was walking this weekend with my wife and 18 month old child. We walk past a little local park and this woman is tanning. OK, no problem but she is topless! I find it slightly inappropriate for her to be topless. Am I off my rocker or what?
Thanks

[celeste26]

There are laws to stop such behavior. Frankly I think that a private tanning session in her back yard is far more appropriate.

[Rianna Humble]

The big question for me is whether you are saying that it is inappropriate for a transwoman to be topless or any woman? If the first then you are right that you are off your rocker. If the second (any woman) then that would depend on the context. I was walking in a park near where I live and there were several women sunbathing topless and none of the mothers who were also walking nearby with their children thought anything of it.

[celeste26]

Whether or not the people are trans or not, the laws about such behavior are in place and make them liable to arrest.

[Karren H]

I guess the magnitude of the problem depends on how "big" her development is. If she looks like a guy on top then maybe she can.... In some countries its not uncommon... In the US is say she's going to get arrested soon..

[giuseppina]

I wouldn't make a big deal of it. In Canada, this is perfectly legal since the legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. More details are available by searching for Gwen Jacob with your favourite search engine.

In places other than topless or nude beaches, a topless woman is still a very rare sight in Canada.

[sandra-leigh]

In Canada, this is perfectly legal since the legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. More details are available by searching for Gwen Jacob with your favourite search engine.

The matter has never been taken to the Supreme Court: Gwen's case was the Ontario Court Of Appeal, which only has provincial jurisdiction and not federal jurisdiction.

My recollection (and I cannot check right now) is that the precident was set in either two or three provinces, and in one territory. It has not been taken up federally. The rumor is that the provinces are declining to lay charges in non-sexualized cases as it is "generally thought" that it would not be possible for such charges to prevail. (To phrase that another way, charges aren't being laid when sex is not involved because the provincial legal councils don't think they can get the charges to stick.)

The precidents apply only where there is no sexual context. Also, the precidents do not apply to "primary sexual characteristics" -- i.e., nudity of the penis or vagina. Breasts are "secondary sexual characteristics" in Canadian law.

Charges of "causing a disturbance" may apply, and there is always the good old "refusing to obey the order of a police officer" (even when the peace officer's order is improper.) Someone sitting in the park getting a sun tan is not inherently attempting to cause a disturbance, whereas someone (say) leaping around near a busy intersection could potentially be deemed to be.

Within the United States, it is instructive to recall the case not so long ago of some MTFs at (I think it was) a Florida beach, MTFs who were (if I recall) presenting primarily as female; they took off their tops, revealing their breasts (implants), and were asked to cover up and then were charged when they argued about it. Daytona, perhaps? Anyhow, charges were dropped and the sheriff's office took the somewhat uncommon step of publically apologizing and stating that the MTF were legally correct: that since they had not had SRS they were legally male and there was no law against males going topless there.

[Karan49]

Personally, I'm not the least bit offended. I've been to Paris France and many young ladies sunbathe topless and it is no big deal. In Boulder, CO many gals sunbathe topless and the law backs them up. There was an article about an older gal doing gardening topless near a school and the police said it was perfectly legal.

What is the concern? Who is being harmed? I'm more bothered by people being inconsiderate of each other. I say, to each their own; let people live their own lifestyle.

Karan

[Sophie86]

I've seen some rather hefty man boobs at the beach on guys who are not at all trans. Are they also subject to arrest? The laws regarding being topless apply differently to men than to women. So long as the transwoman still has an 'M' on her driver's license, the law considers her a man, and allows her to be topless.

[Kerrylee61]

Not in Toronto Canada... Court case a nunber of years ago said it was "against her equality" or some such thing... Men can go topless on the beach there in Ontario ergo so women????

Me I really have no opinion one way or the other

Kerry

[MissVictoria]

There have been lawsuits in NYC that contend a woman can go topless anywhere a man can. There were 2 high profile cases, and the offending women were victorious in both cases. There is also a movement that calls for toplessness rights to be equalized, and are arranging for a "Go Topless" day in Central Park, and several other major cities in August of this year. Guess I'm going to be busy that day as I go show my "support" for these pioneering ladies! (plus, I wanna see boobs, for research, of course;)

[Natalie D]

There are laws to stop such behavior. Frankly I think that a private tanning session in her back yard is far more appropriate.

I don't know what the laws are here in the UK. The thing is its totally acceptable for a man to be topless almost anywhere in public. I'm not sure if the law changes for a woman or not. Its not socially excepted for a woman to walk around topless and whether that's right or wrong I don't know and I'm sure some would argue this fact. I beleive theres a time and a place for a woman to be topless. Any self respecting woman would know when and where this is.

[Cynthia Anne]

I think the law should be changed and make it legal! But now wait a minute! I'd rather wear a bra!

[Sophie86]

It occurs to me that I didn't really answer the question. Yes, I believe it is legal, but no, I don't believe it is appropriate, not at a neighborhood park. If one is living as a female, one should follow the same rules that females follow.

[Annaliese2010]

Welllll... Hmmm... Ok. Assume the law states "women cannot be topless". So... why? Because the free display of breasts in public by a woman would be dangerously distracting and create havoc. Why? Because they captivate attention, ignite the imagination, light the fuel of desire, hypnotize, mesmerize, titillate, disturb rational thought processes, stimulate, alter hormone levels in the observer, induce bad behavior in some, lower self control, heighten the sex drive...

So the intent of the law is clear. The question is...was this the effect she was having on passersby or not? If you didn't know about her transitioning gender status before hand would you have mistaken that person for a male with distasteful breasts as is not so unusual for a variety of conditions (obesity, an aged man, etc) or would you have thought "wow theres a woman showing her breasts?!". Depending on how most ppl answer that question I guess answers your question.

[Konfused]

I was definitely under the assumption that it was unlawful for women to be topless anywhere in public. If she is legally a woman, then it would be unlawful. If she is legally a man, then I guess it's ok. Seems more like one of those issues where the person should use their own discretion.

[Stephenie S]

And your problem is . . . . .?

You don't want to see man boobs?

You don't want to see female boobs?

You just think you have a right to decide what others wear?

I'm not sure what your point is.

S

[Sophie86]

I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not sure who you're talking to.

[suchacutie]

Hmmm, it is rather inconsistent, no?

I'm just putting Tina in the place of the person in the park. Here she is dressed as a woman, presenting as a woman, working like crazy to communicate as a woman, and trying to present all the "clues" to the public at large that she's feminine.

And then in a public park she removes her top and bra?

Even if it's not illegal, it just seems...well....inconsistent!

[sandra-leigh]

I was definitely under the assumption that it was unlawful for women to be topless anywhere in public.

No, that is not the case in all US States, and is not the case in some or all parts of other countries. A precedent in Ontario Canada was referred to earlier. When I was in Sweden around 1990, my then-girlfriend indicated that topless at the beach was acceptable there and that we would go in the summer; unfortunately I never happened to visit Sweden in the summer. I have read articles about nudity (not just topless) in public parks in Germany being common -- not just legal but socially encouraged. And of course nearly everyone has, I am sure, heard about the topless or nude beaches along the Riviera.

Konfused, I looked back through your postings, but I was not able to determine where you are located in order to research the situation for your area.

[Leslie Langford]

Of course, the elephant in the room here is how public breast-feeding is perceived by most people as opposed to going topless.

In both instances, the breasts are exposed, but in the case of breast-feeding, it is considered to be a natural act with no sexual overtones and therefore O.K. to do in plain view.

On the other hand, going topless is seen in some circles as being an erotic (if not an exhibitionistic) act of public nudity and therefore doing so constitutes lewd behavior. Same boobs, but with different yardsticks being applied depending on how/why they are being bared.

Kinda reminds me of how the vagina is magically transformed into the "birth canal" during the act of childbirth as opposed to what it is called at any other time.

My, we can be puritanical at times, even if that does defy logic depending on the situation. :doh:

[Badtranny]

I love these kinds of topics.

My first thought was she should put a damn top on. On further consideration, women should in fact be allowed to go shirtless wherever men are allowed to. In a short time, we'll all get used to it and stop ogling the boobs.

On the other hand, breasts have definite sexual overtones that the bare chest of a man can't quite match.

The broad, muscular, and just slightly hairy chest of a man doesn't really incite desire in ....men. Hmmmm, interesting that men can walk around shirtless in tight shorts, putting their manly goods on display and women are somehow required by community standards, if not by law to cover up their feminine charms. This feels sexist to me. Like women need protection because they're soooo fragile. Who are we protecting them from? Themselves? Men?

[busker]

It isn't illegal in all states. In Vermont, for example, nudity in some cities is quite legal.
Brattleboro Vermont Teens are Nude in Public and it's Legal
Nothing wrong with public nudity in Brattleboro Vermont. Here on the banks of the Connecticut River, in the busiest parking area of a downtown peppered ...
www.kensavage.com/.../vermont-teens-are-naked-in-public-and-its-legal/ - Cached - Similar
try the link.

[Loni]

i would not be offended, some would.
as for legal, most cops would just ask the person to cover up.
as for the law. in some places it will get you arrested. (sexual perversion charge) others will just be asked to cover up (no mater what the law really says).
it is thought to just be very bad form. even in sf during pride women (or m-f with breasts) are required to cover the nipples. if not then a ticket.

[sandra-leigh]

Nothing wrong with public nudity in Brattleboro Vermont. [...] try the link

Broken link. I was able to figure out the correct link, but I will not give it here as it appears to me that some of the images in that blog are against forum rules for links.

[Kate Simmons]

At a topless beach it would be appropriate, at a public park it would not be. Simple really.:)

[noeleena]

Hi,

As a woman im not going topless , because i dont wont men looking at my body. & more so my breasts. even on the beach .
A prude or old fashoned . yea may be,


...noeleena...

[Natalie D]

When I was with my ex we went on holiday several times to Spain etc. She was happy to go topless on the beach or around the hotel pool. Some hotels have a topless policy and some don't. So many women are topless and it's perfectly acceptable. However as soon as we were to leave these area's she would, and every other woman cover up if only with a little bikini top. I could however wander around still topless. This as far as I know is just down to decency and leaving the beach/pool is like stepping out of the comfort zone. It somehow becomes more like being in public and therefore not so acceptable. Outside bars many men are topless but I've never seen a woman having a drink topless. I don't think many women would be comfortable topless unless it were a nude resort.

Back home in the UK my ex would never dream of going topless not even on a beach although there a some beaches where topless is ok. I think the thing is here that for most women there is a time and place to go topless. I personally don't think a park is and would have though she could of found somewhere more private. I couldn't careless to be honest but I know some people wouldn't like to see it.

[AddyCD]

Hmmm, it is rather inconsistent, no?

I'm just putting Tina in the place of the person in the park. Here she is dressed as a woman, presenting as a woman, working like crazy to communicate as a woman, and trying to present all the "clues" to the public at large that she's feminine.

And then in a public park she removes her top and bra?

Even if it's not illegal, it just seems...well....inconsistent!

I think suchacutie hits the nail on the head (at least as far as I am concerned). It's the inconsistencies that get me. If she wants to be accepted and treated as a woman she should abide by the decency laws in place in my state (RI). I guess it didn't bother me soo much that I called the cops on her but if she wanted to tan the girls then do it in her back yard.

While I think about it more, it could be that I can't stand the woman and my problem isn't with public nudity per say but my problem is with her (and consequently with her nudity).

I got to say I love the discussion though. Thanks for all the responses.

[docrobbysherry]

Did she have attractive, shapely breasts?:daydreaming:

If so, what harm can showing them off do? :D
If NOT, no matter her gender, they should be COVERED in a public venue. :brolleyes:

Unless general nudity was accepted there!:)

[AddyCD]

Unfortunately Pamela Anderson she is not! :)

[Kerigirl2009]

TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE!!! I would have called the police and reported her. It does not matter if she is trans or a GG its all the same. Society says that women can not be topless in public for whatever reason. Just as men or women can not go bottomless,
The Breasts are considered a sexual organ by society which is why they must remain covered, although we know that not to be the case, but we are a stubborn people.

[danielletorresani]

Totally inappropriate, in my eyes.

[VioletJourney]

Honestly I don't understand why certain body parts are considered "inappropriate" in the first place.

[Alexiz]

Without a doubt, everyone has their own standards by which something is inappropriate or not... I guess that's pretty obvious. I can't say for sure what she might have been thinking, doing that in the middle of nowhere.. and like many others have said, if it's legal then there's nothing stopping her.. but it kind of goes along with issues like public breastfeeding. Personally, I think things like that and public nudity should be kept to a more private sort of area (I wouldn't go out and be living in an area that allowed and encouraged it if I was bothered by it extremely), I don't like that idea of having to see nudity when I'm taking a simple stroll down the street or something.

[Sophie86]

I don't have a problem with breasts in public places, as long as it's understood that there will be exposed breasts in those places. I just don't think that people strolling through the park with their kids should have to worry about running up on someone sunning her breasts. They are kinda private/personal in most venues, and that's just how that is. I don't really think there should be a law against it. I just think that it's inconsiderate.

[Vickie_CDTV]

It is true in some states it is legal for women to be topless where men are also allowed to be topless, as it is in NY state.

However, because something is legal doesn't always make it a good idea. She is drawing negative attention to herself and may be harassed because of it and she is increased risk due to her gender status. I personally don't care, people could walk around nude and I wouldn't care (I have seen it all), but she may be putting herself at unneeded risk.

[Intertwined]

No, you’re not off your rocker… But, I would like to lend this machete to the mental thicket here.

How is it any more, or less, appropriate for one gender or sex, to go topless (or be required to wear a top) than it would be for the opposite gender?

My point here, it’s a double standard, BOTH men and women have breasts. It’s only because of the action of hormones that women’s breast become more prominent than those of men.

[ReineD]

Intertwined, I think it is because breasts are seen as sexual body parts in our neck of the woods, while male pecs aren't. There's a double standard because the bodies are different. :)

[Intertwined]

There's a double standard because the bodies are different. :)

But, other than size, the male and female breasts are identical. In my eyes, it's like saying if your stand over 5 foot 8 inches tall, it’s inappropriate for you to wear high heels.

Now, since it seems to be a size issue, where do you draw the line, if you’re smaller that a “B” cup, is it OK to go topless?

Now for the real fun. I am a 48 year old male, 6 foot 2 inches tall, well built, and very fury. I live on the coast in southern California, and enjoy going to the beach often. When I go to the beach, I have to wear T-shirt or rash guard, even when swimming, why? To avoid being called names, getting into arguments, and have even been attacked, all because I have natural “C” cup breasts.

[Sophie86]

But, other than size, the male and female breasts are identical.

You ignored the first part of her post.


Intertwined, I think it is because breasts are seen as sexual body parts in our neck of the woods, while male pecs aren't.

It's not about the size. Go ahead and make your argument about how they should be viewed the same. When you get everyone else to stop viewing women's breast as sexual body parts, I'll agree that we should have one standard. Until then, I think it's more polite to respect the general opinion.

[ReineD]

Thanks Sophie. :) But Intertwined, are you having difficulty seeing the difference because in your own mind there isn't? In other words there is an equal mix of male/female identity within you and you just can't see the difference between men and women? I'm just wondering why you look at it differently than I do. It's not a criticism.

[Intertwined]

1st: @ Reine & Sohpie, not to worry, I never take anything personally.. ;)

2nd: @ Reine, you are correct, in my mind there is no difference, but, it's because I believe (i may be wrong) that most women get turned on by a (normal, health) mans chest,:heehee: no different than a man getting turned on by a woman’s breast.:devil:

3rd: @ Sophie I always respect other people’s opinions, and love looking at problems and situations from as many points of view as possible. I agree with the general consensus, here in America, at this time with our societies current views and beliefs, it is inappropriate for a woman to be topless in public.

Finally, :2c: it is also my belief that it is inappropriate for a man to be topless in public, and yes… I know I am the minority here.. LOL

[ReineD]

2nd: @ Reine, you are correct, in my mind there is no difference, but, it's because I believe (i may be wrong) that most women get turned on by a (normal, health) mans chest,:heehee: no different than a man getting turned on by a woman’s breast.:devil:

I see. Well, I'm sure there are many GGS who do think that male pecs are attractive (including me, as long as they are not as developed at body builders), but it is not at all the same as the way in which men sexualize a woman's breasts. Just look at the sheer volume of porn sites directed mostly at men that feature buxom beauties. :)

[vetobob9]

Hi all,
I am a crossdresser. I have no plans to transition to female in any sense. Anyway I have a neighbor who is a pre-op ts. She identifies as female (with female name) and is always around in feminine clothes. So I was walking this weekend with my wife and 18 month old child. We walk past a little local park and this woman is tanning. OK, no problem but she is topless! I find it slightly inappropriate for her to be topless. Am I off my rocker or what?
Thanks
It depends on where you are. For example, a few years ago, there used a couple of nude beaches in California. But today there pretty much none, officially. The reason is because a local law was extended to cover the entire state of California. Now there is one beach in the state, I wont say where, that you can still get nude without being harrassed.
Also, there are a lot of place in Europe where public nudity is common. For example the beaches in spain and the lakes in some parts of Germany. Nudity is also common in the Florida Keys.
I would also note, that under a federal court decision, a New York ban on women being topless was ruled unconstitional because it didn't apply to men. So in the US the question revolves around whether a law banning the exposure of certain areas of the body treated people differently based on their sex. A law that banned women from being topless would not pass constitutional muster because it did not apply to men equally. But a law that required both sexes to have the area between their legs covered would pass muster because it applies to both equally.

[ReineD]

A law that banned women from being topless would not pass constitutional muster because it did not apply to men equally. But a law that required both sexes to have the area between their legs covered would pass muster because it applies to both equally.

Constitution aside and looking at the reality of how people currently live in the US, men do feel comfortable being bare chested at the public swimming pool, whereas women don't and there are unfortunately many people who do feel uncomfortable seeing a bare breasted woman in public?

So what do you think the TS in question should do, if she is to be considerate of others in her surroundings?

I guess she has shown that she doesn't give a damn. Maybe she is the type who lives lives a life of drama constantly wanting to prove a point, just because she can. Or, maybe she just likes the attention. Or, if her newly developed breasts are a source of pride to her, maybe she thinks that everyone else will be as enamored with them as she is. :p

I agree though, that if it was commonplace for women to suntan bare breasted, then by all means, she should too.

[eluuzion]

I think somebody needs to take the initiative to go over there and have a little chat with her about her behavior.

What's the address? I'll just head right over there and take care of this matter...:heehee::daydreaming::heehee:

:love:

[AddyCD]

I think somebody needs to take the initiative to go over there and have a little chat with her about her behavior.

What's the address? I'll just head right over there and take care of this matter...:heehee::daydreaming::heehee:

:love:

She lives right next door to me in Quahog, RI. Come on over and we can stop by the Drunken Clam for beers after. :)

[sandra-leigh]

TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE!!! I would have called the police and reported her. It does not matter if she is trans or a GG its all the same. Society says that women can not be topless in public for whatever reason.

And what other moral issues to you feel personally responsible for enforcing?

Is she legally a woman? If not, then what crime or misdemeanor would you have told the police that she was violating? "Public Gynecomastia" perhaps? "Showing Cleavage Without A License" maybe?

[UNDERDRESSER]

Eh, I think there is a lot of moralistic nonsense talked about nudity. As others have said, in Germany and Austria , public nudity is legal, but for the most part, people don't abuse the right. I would like to take part in one of the naked bike ride days, but I don't feel the need to walk around naked in public as an everyday thing. I sunbathe in a very brief speedo ( sometimes a bikini bottom that is close to being unisex ) but I do it where I am not overlooked, people could still walk closer and get an eyeful, should they desire, but I'm not shoving it in their face, I don't kid myself that my middle aged body is all that great. It's important to be appropriate for the location and common attitudes. As for the TG in question, I would have to see how "bad" it was. At most, I would approach her later and ask her to tone it down a bit.

[sometimes_miss]

Welllll... Hmmm... Ok. Assume the law states "women cannot be topless". So... why? Because the free display of breasts in public by a woman would be dangerously distracting and create havoc. Why? Because they captivate attention, ignite the imagination, light the fuel of desire, hypnotize, mesmerize, titillate, disturb rational thought processes, stimulate, alter hormone levels in the observer, induce bad behavior in some, lower self control, heighten the sex drive...
Exactly why there should be no such law against it. In fact, there shouldn't be any law against nudity at all, but people should be required to wear some type of lower garment when sitting on public furniture or transportaion, or in commercial settings where others will be using the same sitting items....just for disease prevention's sake I suppose.

[Jane G]

:eek:What on earth is all the fuss about. Come to Cornwall and walk along most crowded beaches, on a hot summers day and there will be several top less women and hundreds of topless guys. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but it's as natural as breathing.:)

[Diane Smith]

I would like to take part in one of the naked bike ride days, but I don't feel the need to walk around naked in public as an everyday thing.

I can think of few things more uncomfortable (and dangerous, in the event of a spill) than riding a bike naked! :)

I've always been very sensitive about showing my bare chest in public, even when there was nothing special there to hide. I think it's one of my feminine traits that I feel just the same about showing my "top" as my "bottom." Perhaps TMI, but my nipples have always been every bit as sensitive as a girl's, and I treat them just like the other erogenous bits that aren't meant to be casually displayed. I never wanted to be seen shirtless in the boys' locker room, and thought "shirts and skins" games were just gross and embarrassing. Only doctors and lovers get to see my uncovered top now -- I do everything I can to avoid showing it to strangers. (This doesn't stop me from wanting to show a trace of cleavage when dressed, of course!)

- Diane

[faltenrock]

Being European, that doesn't seem to be an issue at all here in Europe. I don't think there should be a difference between a GG or a TS being topless, if the TS is feminine - both are women right?

[vetobob9]

Welllll... Hmmm... Ok. Assume the law states "women cannot be topless". So... why? Because the free display of breasts in public by a woman would be dangerously distracting and create havoc. Why? Because they captivate attention, ignite the imagination, light the fuel of desire, hypnotize, mesmerize, titillate, disturb rational thought processes, stimulate, alter hormone levels in the observer, induce bad behavior in some, lower self control, heighten the sex drive...

So the intent of the law is clear. The question is...was this the effect she was having on passersby or not? If you didn't know about her transitioning gender status before hand would you have mistaken that person for a male with distasteful breasts as is not so unusual for a variety of conditions (obesity, an aged man, etc) or would you have thought "wow theres a woman showing her breasts?!". Depending on how most ppl answer that question I guess answers your question.

actually that was not the intent. The intent was to prevent people from being morally offended based off their interpretation of a religious book.

[Kayte]

I guess that it all comes back to the mores and expectations of the society or even microcosm in which one is at the time. The law, if applied correctly, should do nothing more than reflect the will of the people.

My personal situation in two cities applies here, I believe, as an example.
I was born and raised in an Industrial City amongst hard working hard playing men's men. Within that social structure grew a small enclave, based around a now famous hotel, which catered for and was entirely staffed by TG. TS and I suppose CD. I say 'I suppose' because as a teen, they were all just "p..fs' within that society at that time many years ago. Anyway, as time passed, without incident, the fear of the general public dissipated and the Star Hotel became a City identity and tourist attraction. They had the best rock and roll band there every Friday night and at the age of 16 I began sneaking in with one of my male school friends, at seemingly great personal risk, just to catch the show. Our homophobia, born of ignorance, slowly dissipated and many of the best and most memorable times of my youth were spent in that pub. There was never ever a single improper advance and complete acceptance of one another, for who the individual was grew into some genuine and treasured friendships.

Given all of that background, it was unacceptable, in that City at that time, for a male to dress enfemme outside of the microcosm of the hotel. Anybody daring to do so would have been placing themselves in harms way. It simply wasn't done. Society was not yet ready.

Forty years later and I have begun to enjoy CDing. Still straight but I love the personal challenge and to be honest, find men to be most unattractive. In essence I'm trying to make myself look more like the women to whom I am attracted I suppose. However I no longer live in a CD tolerant place. Based in a rural city, not very far from the location of the violent scenes in the movie, Priscilla, it is prudent to remain closeted indoors. Why? This is the Australian equivalent of red neck country and this society is just not ready. There is no CD/TG hang out here. In the 6 years I have lived here I have seem one male with hormonal breasts, dressed in drab and only on one occasion. Yes there are CDs here. Of course there are and I see a number of very masculine men with the telltale plucked or missing eyebrows. That's as public as it gets.

My point? It's all about where and when you live. I could go back to my birth city and barely turn a head. Here I venture outside for a practice walk around the block at 3:00am if I'm feeling brave... Bare breasts in public? Are YOU ready for it? Is your society ready for it? The answer can change dramatically within a few miles, a few city blocks or a few years.

[Iskandra]

Let them loose.. I for one will never stop looking at and admiring breasts, But geez, the sexness is in the showing..
Breastfeeding, sunbaking, heck just walking down the street, it is no less nature as it would be for a guy (to be topless).. But girls, just don't suck on those nipples or 'play' with those breasts in public ok?!
Seems wearing a bikinitop that only just covers the nipple is 'ok'.. Funny that considering the nipple is what both sexes have in common...
It's the mound under the nipple that makes the difference, but that part is ok to flaunt... Heck female fashion is designed to flaunt the breast... hmm...

[TGMarla]

Whereas I think women have as much right to go topless as do men, I think both sexes should save it for the beach. Or perhaps in the privacy of one's own home. When I see men wandering around topless, I sometimes wonder what they're trying to prove. I mean, gee...what a man. He has no shirt on. Get some civilization and put a shirt on! Yes, I think it's inappropriate for this woman, trans or not, to be topless in a park. But I think it's equally inappropriate for men to do so as well.

I guess the difference is here is that men are sexually aroused by a woman's breasts far more than women are by a man's bare chest. Just my opinion, perhaps.

But then, what happens if a pick-up basketball game comes up.....shirts vs skins, anyone?

[donnalee]

After reading all these posts, I glean this from them as to what is legal and/or appropriate.
It depends.
It depends where you live.
It depends on your religion (or lack thereof).
It depends on your upbringing (or lack thereof).
It depends on generational mores.
It depends on how you view yourself in regard to others, and others in regard to you.
It depends.

If you see someone whose appearance offends you, there is NOTHING that says "you must stay here and ogle them".
Walk away. There is no need to stay there; its the same as with any confrontation and always your best option.

[L'eggs n' heels]

I believe that in the County where I live it is legal for women to go topless. I'll have to double check but I think they passed an ordinance a few years ago.

[kellyanne]

Re: " I wouldn't make a big deal of it. In Canada, this is perfectly legal since the legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada."

True!

but ... have I yet to see a topless woman in public excercising her hard won freedoms or heard of one.

[TGMarla]

I see a whole lot of burns here on how it should be appropriate no matter what, some Bible bashing, and some who feel that Euro-sensibilities should apply to the rest of the world. I'm sure you're all entitled to your opinions, but there is such a thing as morality no matter whether you feel it's right or not. Many people find bare breasts in public to be completely inappropriate. For argument's sake, let's assume this is rooted in religion. Simply because someone disagrees with a religion does not make it wrong. And simply because you disagree with it does not change the fact that many people do agree with it.

The person in question is here in the USA. This country was founded by people trying to get away from European moralities. Europe has run itself into the ground with it's slanted sensibilities. I don't think trying to impose their morals on the United States is going to fly very far. If you want to go around topless, and Euros are okay with that, then go to Europe. The United States went through a period in the late '60s and early '70s when everyone allowed their moralities to slide into the gutter, and where did that get us? (Yeah, sure...the hippie craze was such a good thing!) Other than excellent music, it had little benefit for anyone.

Societies need boundaries in order to maintain themselves. This woman is welcome to go topless in her back yard if she feels the need. Public parks often have children in them, and they don't need to be exposed to a lot of bare breasted women. And if you feel there's a double standard because men can take their shirts off, then we can open up the whole clothing double standard with skirts and dresses again. There may be a double standard, but those of you who feel this way can just deal with it. The same argument that keeps men from wearing dresses allows men to go shirtless in public.

[Rianna Humble]

The person in question is here in the USA. This country was founded by people trying to get away from European moralities.

Actually no, your country was founded by people fleeing unnecessary restrictions to their freedom, not by people trying to get away from specific moral values.


I don't think trying to impose their morals on the United States is going to fly very far.

Until proof to the contrary no-one in this thread was trying to impose morals on the USA. The original poster didn't ask whether only members from certain restrictive states of the USA felt that it was inappropriate for a transwoman to sunbathe topless, she asked whether members thought that.


Simply because someone disagrees with a religion does not make it wrong. And simply because you disagree with it does not change the fact that many people do agree with it.

Many people believe in religions other than the one that you appear to espouse, yet your one declares that they are wrong. Double standards?

[TGMarla]

Rianna, by your logic, America was founded just so we could run around topless, since back in those days, women had a little more humility and did not run around bare breasted in Europe, either. Neither is the prevailing morality of disallowing women to go topless in public places a nuance of "certain restrictive states".

Incidentally, I do not ascribe to any particular religion. However, I respect the fact that many, if not most, of the people in the United States do in fact profess themselves to be of the Christian religion. Simply because I choose to not believe the same way they do, this does not make them wrong. It simply means they believe differently than I do. I do not presume to impose my beliefs upon them, nor do I expect them to change their beliefs to cater to my own. You have wrongly inferred that I believe in a certain religion, and it is not the first time you have cherry-picked my words in a lame attempt to bolster your own indefensible arguments. All religions by their nature proclaim all others to be wrong. How is this in any way a double standard? I am expounding no double standards at all. In fact, my own thoughts on the issue do not involve religion at all. But societies adopt moral standards all the time, whether you wish to acknowledge them or not. Sometimes these standards have their roots in religion, and sometimes they don't. But the prevailing attitudes in this country restrict women from going topless except in certain given situations. Most all of the women I know don't have any problem with this. In fact, they support it.

So go ahead and rip your top off in your local park, ignoring the fact that you're likely to offend everyone around you. But make sure you have someone you can call so you can post bail after you're arrested. Then you can whine about double standards to the judge, and he can tell you these very same things.

[KarenCDFL]

Unfortunately, our laws and society says there is a difference between malel and female torso's. So by the rules that we have to live by it would be inappropriate to go topless unless it was in a private or designated area.

I think its all BS but I don't make the rules.

[Sophie86]

People came to settle in America for a lot of different reasons. Some came to get rich, some came looking for adventure, some came seeking freedom, and some came because they wanted to establish a theocratic state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Bay_Colony) based on their dissenting religious beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritanism). In the latter, they banished heretics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian)), hanged the ones who wouldn't stay gone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Dyer), and even hanged witches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials).

As a nation, the US was founded on a belief in individual rights. That belief hasn't always been implemented (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act_of_1830) consistently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States), but it is the founding doctrine of the nation. If we are going to base our arguments about bare breasts on "America's Founding," then that's the principle we should follow. Applying it to bare boobs in a public park, the first question is: Why the heck is our government taxing us to pay for a public park? If people want a park, let them get together and pay for the darned thing themselves. Then, they can decide whether they're going to let people sunbathe topless in it or not.

If we followed that conception of individual rights consistently, the amount of public space where the government would have any say at all over how people dressed would be government buildings like police stations and courthouses--just those places necessary for carrying out the government's sole legitimate purpose of protecting individual rights, places where one would obviously want to wear shirt, shoes and pants. All other land would be privately owned, whether by individuals, corporations, or associations, and the owners would make the rules about proper attire.

Until that idyllic day, maybe we could all just be polite to one another by a) not going to a crowded place where there are families hanging out with their kids, and baring body parts that some people might not want to see; and b) if we happen upon someone sunbathing in the nude in an out of the way spot, ignoring them regardless of whether we think they are doing something inappropriate.

[TGMarla]

These parks, and the public buildings you mention, are municipal entities, bought and paid for out of municipal taxes, and voted on either by representative government or by public referrendum. The same can be said for local laws that prohibit women going about in public while topless. It's the will of the majority of the people, and that includes women.

Deal with it.

[ReineD]

This is starting to turn into a political discussion, which we all know can become highly contentious.

Please, for those of you who are taking this to heart, walk away for a day or two and just stop the volleying.

I hate to close this thread but I'll be forced to if it gets ugly.

[sandra-leigh]

Rianna, by your logic, America was founded just so we could run around topless, since back in those days, women had a little more humility and did not run around bare breasted in Europe, either.

What time period is it that you consider "America" to have been founded? Wiki:Toplessness says this:


Similar fashions became popular in England during the 17th century when they were worn by Queen Mary II and by Henrietta Maria, wife of Charles I of England, for whom architect Inigo Jones designed a masque costume that fully revealed both of her breasts.

From the mid-19th century onward, however, social attitudes shifted to require women's breasts to be covered in public, especially in the United States.


The Charles I that is referred to assumed the throne in 1625, just a few years after Pilgrims traveled on the Mayflower in 1620. The historical material thus suggests that female exposure of breasts especially in upper class society predated the Mayflower and continued after it. Were the Pilgrims fleeing exposure of female breasts? I do not have sufficiently historical knowledge to say; I do, though, see material indicating that the Pilgrims were fleeing because they felt the Church of England had retained too much Catholicism and was not Pure enough (Puritans); Wiki:Puritan


Puritanism was fundamentally anti-Catholic: Puritans felt that the Church of England was still too close to Catholicism and needed to be reformed further. Many of the rituals preserved by the Church of England were not only considered to be objectionable, but were believed by some nonconformists to put one's immortal soul in peril.

Things got complicated and ugly after that in England, with the Puritans pushing to eliminate Catholicism, and Charles I, in order to pursue a policy of coexistence of CofE and Catholicism, dealt heavily with the Puritans. One point of view is that the Puritans were Protestant Extremists of their day and Charles I repressed those extremists. As Charles's wife was Roman Catholic and disfavored those who would repress her religion, it is not out of the question that the Puritans decided that her clothing fashions (i.e., favoring bare breasts) were part of what they disliked. Not inherently, but just because it was favored by their opposition...


Anyhow, Maria, women did indeed run around bare-breasted in Europe during the time frame of at least one of the events considered key to the "founding" of "America". "Humility" was not part of the equation. And if the Puritans were, as you claim, attempting to get away from the morality of Europe, the morality they were attempting to flee from was the morality that said that one should not push people too hard to convert to the new religion.

If permitting people to retain elements of their generations and generations of religion is the sort of thing you consider to constitute "allowing morality to slide in to the gutter", then you and I must surely have extremely different worldviews.

[TGMarla]

I admit that I had not known of this particular fashion trend back at that time. It's very interesting. I see, however, that since about the 1840s, toplessness has fallen out of favor in western society.

To clarify my own position on toplessness in today's society, I have no issues with bare breasted women. I tend to enjoy it when situations such as those depicted in "Girls Gone Wild" break out, and young women rip their tops off. But most of these types of situations take place when there are not children present. And while I have, a few times in my life, been engaged in some bawdy parties where the booze flowed freely, I still don't give wholesale approval to such situations. For instance, if I had a daughter, I wouldn't want her to be engaging in such activities. What parent would? And I don't need young children being exposed to public nudity in city parks.

Look, I'm not a prude. But there's a time and a place for everything. And public parks are not appropriate places for nudity.

[TGMarla]

Yeah, you'd think the drunken frat girls would be more objectionable, eh? I think it comes down to situations, really. Public parks are family places. Beach frat parties aren't. People don't take their kids to Daytona on spring break.