Conference turris::womannotes-v3

No, I don't see it as sexist, per se.  Rather, I see public clothing
requirements for anyone as an attempt to impose Victorian morals on 
people. 

>> fact that women are *forced* to make parts of their bodies retain their
>> "sexual implications" for men's pleasure.)

This argument could be used for pants/undies too.  And men can be arrested
for running around with everything hanging out also.

M

    I agree, wholetitedly.
    
    Last summer I was at a public beach in RI.  After about twenty minutes,
    I realized I was on the edge of a presumably private nudist beach.  Or
    at least it wasn't part of the state beach.  It took me that long to
    realize because, although I knew I was seeing naked bodies, it didn't
    dawn on me that it was "out of place" to see them there.  There was a
    momentary turn-on with that realization, but it quickly turned to envy
    for the nudists' comfortability.
    
    I wanted to suggest we join them, but I was the only female with a
    bunch of guys, some of whom were only acquaintances.  I didn't know how
    they'd react, how my husband would react or even how I'd feel.  It may
    have been easier if I had been alone with Danny.
    
    I don't understand the dichotomy "out there" probably because I still
    have a bit of it in my own head.
    
    Nancy
      

>> fact that women are *forced* to make parts of their bodies retain their
>> "sexual implications" for men's pleasure.)

>This argument could be used for pants/undies too.  And men can be arrested
>for running around with everything hanging out also.

No, because men aren't allowed to show thiers publically anywhere. Women
are only allowed to show it as a "show", not as part of their bodies they
are comfortable with.

Men and women's genitals correspond.  Men have nothing that correspond
to breasts.  Genitals *are* inherently sexual.  The laws between breasts
and genitals differ.  As far as I know, in NY, neither men's nor
women's genitals may be shown publically.  (In the strip shows I have
seen, women must wear a minimum of at least a g-string.  In some areas
they have to wear "pasties", stick on coverings over the nippes, too.)

Mind you, I don't think we should be required to wear clothes at all.  but
even following the distorted logic that sexual parts should be kept clothed,
the only thing that makes breasts sexual parts is that they *are* kept
clothed.

D!

    
    for those that are interested, there was an article recently in
    the 'new yorker' that explored the 'topfree equality' movement in 
    rochester, where it has been prominent off and on since at least 
    the mid-seventies when i was taking my undergraduate degree there.
    
    

                     -< needless to say, i agree with d! >-

Quick!!! Alert the Press!!

D!

    I *do* buy the argument that it is sexist because men don't have to 
    wear shirts and women do (and would be willing to resell it at a 
    markup, too! ;-)  It is a personal pet peeve of mine to know that I
    could be arrested for doing something a man could do without anyone
    blinking an eye.  I can't justify these laws because "men and women
    are different up top", because that's not universally true.  Even
    a woman with a AA cup could be arrested for indecent exposure... and
    there are plenty of men whose chests are similarly sized.  And while
    society generally encourages those whose body parts are different to 
    hide their differences (how many mastectomates have you seen walking
    around in public without their prostheses?  Or, for a more exact
    example, remember anchorwoman Bree Walker, who at first wore gloves
    to hide her deformed hands?), there's no *law* stating that they 
    *must*.

    I think the reason behind this is exactly the reason you cited -
    that women are *forced* to make parts of their bodies retain their
    "sexual implications" for men's pleasure.  In parts of Africa,
    women are allowed to bare their breasts, but must cover their legs
    because _those_ are considered sexual.  Pretty arbitrary, if you ask
    me.

    I think the laws of "public decency" (as our society currently defines
    public decency) are reasonable in calling for people to cover their
    sex organs.  Anything else, in my opinion, is sexist if not applied
    equally to both men and women.

	Sharon

    it's the well-turned ankle that does it to me......
    
    Having been around nude beaches, and having belonged to a clothing
    optional resort for a year, I disagree with D's assesment that
    genitalia are inherently sexual; that, in fact, that the naked
    human body is inherently sexual. This might seem at true at first,
    but sexuality is a matter of context more tham anything else,
    and after one's visual curiousity is satisfied, nudity becomes
    rather mundane.
    
    To me it is an issue of "why not public nudity?" 
    
    There are very few great bodies in this world, and clothing works 
    as much to minimize our flaws as much as maximize our assets. I 
    think it would help a great deal to make people more accepting
    of their own bodies if they saw others on a regular, normal
    basis, and feel that they didn't have to live up to some media image
    of what they thought they should look like.
    
    I think that most people sexualize nudity because it is the only 
    context in which they have been nude with a member of the opposite sex.
    This does not mean nudity is inherently sexual.
    
    I think drawing a line between only exposing the breasts, and exposing
    the entire human body, is arbitrary.
    
    -roger
    

    There is absolutely no valid reason why a women must cover the breast
    and men do not have to. This is an extermely arbitrary and
    discriminatory practice.
    
    I support the Top Free movement fully and applaud those who are willing
    to take a stand and chance to try and influence those in power that
    make such laws.
    
    If a woman wishes to remain covered for her OWN reasons she should be
    allowed to, just as much as a woman who wishes to remove her top should
    be allowed to do so. If the environment allows men to be topless then
    it should apply equally to women if they so chose.
    
    My wife and I try to go to places that allow for the freedom to make
    the decision of topless (or nude) as an individual right when we go to
    the beach or similar area.
    
    
    	Dave L...

    See also:
    
    Womannotes-v2
    topic 61 - Topfree Equality
    
    -Jody
    

    See also the entire Naturism conference on MOIRA::NATURISM.  (except
    this conference is currently suffering from a corrupted system disk).

    I recently spent a month in Norway.  I was really struck by the
    difference in attitudes from those prevalent in the U.S.  Topless
    sunbathing in city parks, residential areas etc. was commonplace, and,
    I'm told, that nude sunbathing was, if not common, at least accepted
    in one of the larger parks near the university.  The tourist guide for
    Oslo listed the nude beaches ......  a slide show on the environment
    and development showed a baby on its mothers bare breast .... not quite
    what we're used to here.  

    The U.S. is VERY puritan when compared with most European countries...
    I was in Germany in early 60s and it was common to see topless girls
    sunbathing in city parks, I've seen topless girls riding bykes in
    Holland, topless senios citizens sunbathing in their own gardens, just
    outside their homes... I never gave it a thought, I could care less.
    Would I go topless? never, I live on my OWN standards, not others, if
    others like to do these things, good for them, I do what I like to do
    and I feel at peace. I don't condone, but I dont follow others actions
    or trends either.  I nursed all my three kids, used decency and common
    sense and it is accepted, no need to recluse yourself behind locked
    doors! It is natural, why all that fuss?
    There are things I don't understand.....
    
    

    I find it ironic that I've been made fun of, all my life, for not
    having big breasts, but that if I were to take my shirt off and
    go topless I could be arrested for baring my size 32A chest.  What
    a joke.  Actually, it's really more of an outrage.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .14
    
    And yet at the same time a man with about 70 pounds too much weight and
    breasts that wouldn't fit in a 36d bra can bare his chest any time he
    wishes. Not what I call fair or equality by any stretch of the
    imagination.
    
    Lorna, sorry that there are so many idiots out there that can't accept
    people for what they are, not how big, tall, color, etc...... that they
    are.
    
    		Dave L...

In the Paris subway last September, I saw an ad for "United Colors of
Benneton" that showed a white baby nursing at a very black woman's breast.

I'd love to put that poster up in, say, the Washington DC subway: it
might give the Jesse Helms' of this world a much needed conniption fit.

Martin.

    
    Benneton decided not to run that ad in the US a while ago, and with
    good reason.  Given the history of wet nurses in this country....
    
    								-mr. bill

    re .16 & .17, I think it would be much more effective if the ad
    had a black baby nursing at a white breast, which is much more likely
    to happen in nature if the woman is nursing her own baby.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE:  .16, .17 & .18
    
    Unfortunately, a black baby at a white breast would probably inflame the
    anti-welfare folks.
    
    In this country you can't win with a black/white nursing image.
    Pity it can be a problem.  Nursing is such a lovely image.

    I nursed my daughter and felt that it was obvious what I was doing so
    didn't feel the need to hide behind a blanket or whatever.  It just was
    so natural to me to nurse in public.  I did get a few strange looks to
    which I responded with, what I hope was a beatific smile, and proceeded
    to ignore the raised eyebrows!  No one ever asked me to cover up or go
    someplace else.  
    
    Nanci

    re .20, I think one of the reasons that I had no interest in breast
    feeding was because nursing in public is (and definitely was in 1974)
    considered taboo in the U.S.  It just seemed like too much trouble to
    have to do something that often that I had to make sure nobody saw, so
    I didn't do it.
    
    Lorna
    

        About 10 years ago, we were with a group at an Italian
        restaurant. There were about a dozen of us including a nursing
        mother. She sat with her back to the rest of the restaurant and
        nursed the baby. Some old fuddy-duddy of a woman complained to
        the help about "that woman" breast feeding and was rewarded for
        her troubles by being railed at by the owner (or the owner's
        wife) an older Italian lady who in a loud voice exclamed that
        this was a family restaurant and THAT is how families are and if
        you don't like it you shouldn't be in a good family restaurant
        and on. She then came over and googooed at the baby and chatted
        amiably with us, leaving the prudish woman sitting absolutely
        aghast.
        
        I loved it.
        
        JimB.

    On July the 4th, in a diner off the Tatonic Parkway, NY:
    
    There was a lady breastfeeding with no comments from anyone.
    
    I recall that in the last year a spouse of an employee breastfeed
    their son in the PKO cafeteria and no one fainted.
    
    The last time that I saw an overt reaction to breastfeeding was about
    11 years ago, when my wife breastfeed our son at a UU fellowship and
    her mother (there for the boy's "dedication") just about flipped out.
    
    Maybe people are getting wiser.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    A previous husband would freak out if I nursed our child in the car on
    the freeway( giving the truckers a free veiw.). He felt that women who
    breastfeed in public where exibitionists. I had a real hard time
    weighting my beliefs that my child should have breastmilk because it
    was best for her and his state of comfort. I did not like having to 
    go to a bedroom to feed the baby when a great conversation was going
    on in the livingroom.
    
    With my last child(new husband) I always felt that he totaly supported
    "baby comes first" as far as what his/her needs are. If baby is hungry
    feed it. I remember feeding my 1 week old while standing in line to
    go through a spook house. I got lots of odd looks but he understood
    that I would not give the child a bottle( to afraid of "wet shirt 
    syndrome). I wanted to be with him and the kids and thats what we were
    doing that day. That baby never cried continuously because he was
    hungry. Feeding was on demand and Steve was very supportive of it.
    He would almost always make me feel better by saying. Go Ahead and feed
    John. Its O.K. He often complemented me on being a wonderful mother and
    I realy needed the extra verbal support because the old record of 
    being an exibitionest would kick in when I least expected it.
    Steves attitude was if baby is hungry he should not have to wait
    because others are offended by the way he eats. Nursing is a whole lot
    less messy than the same child at 20 mnths spreading crakers and jam
    across the resaurant carpet by flinging it in the air. Teaching the 20
    month old manners is so much harder.
    
    Gradually I was able to change my feelings about being embarressed
    about nursing from "I'm sorry my baby needs to eat" to "If this is
    going to bother you look the other way while I feed John.
    
    I also remember that getting baby latched on and off where the hardest
    and most exposing parts of the whole thing. Once baby has the nipple in
    his mouth what is thier to see?
    
    A happy baby I guess.
    
    
    janet
    
     

    I've always been amazed that breastfeeding gets disapproving 
    looks from anyone.
    
    What in heaven's name do they think breasts are for??!
    

	The only time I can remember being startled by breastfeeding was one
morning when I was sitting waiting in the waiting room of the Cape Cod
Hospital Emergency Room (which also used to serve as a walk-in clinic for folks 
without regular doctors or on vacation, but if you weren't dying, you 
*waited*...) A young girl (she looked 15 or so, to me) sat down across from me 
with a  baby in her arms.  I thought she looked like she was taking care of 
the baby while the mother was in the ER.  That opinion changed quickly when
she lifted her shirt and began to feed the child.  Aside from my initial
jolt from my preconception, I wasn't the least perturbed, and no one else
seemed to notice either.

						--D

    I don't think I'd ever seen anyone breastfeed before about a month ago.
    And this was in a bathroom. It saddened me that I was so taken aback by
    it. It seemed like such a miraculous thing to be able to do, but at the
    same time, I had to deal with the "newness" of it...

    I breast fed 20 years ago, and had very few times when someone
    objected.
    
    I would cover myself and the baby with a cloth diaper tho, if
    I had to feed him in public.
    
    Bonnie

    I have to confess that I, um, was shocked when someone I was with
    started breast-feeding in public. I wished she had put a towel or
    something on her so her breasts were covered. I've seen many women
    breastfeed in India, but there's a portion of the sari that goes over
    your breasts. So the babies head vanishes under the sari and nothing is
    seen.

    
    Re .30
    >started breast-feeding in public. I wished she had put a towel or
                                       -------------------------------
    >something on her so her breasts were covered. I've seen many women
     --------------------------------------------
    
    	Only one question - Why?
    

        I had  gone to visit my girlfriend who lived a few streets away
        from us in  a Glasgow tenement.  Her mother opened the door and
        welcomed me in, called  for  Isobel,  and  sat beside me on the
        couch with her baby in  her  arms.   As she talked with me, she
        opened her blouse and gave the  baby  her  nipple - I can still
        remember how perfect it seemed to me. I was 6 years old.
        
        

    I doubt it's ever happened but if it's illegal for a woman's breasts to
    be seen in public (other than in strip joints) couldn't a woman be
    arrested for breastfeeding? Can you imagine the scene that would cause?

    An aside, I can remember my mom breastfeeding my younger brother all
    the way back in the 50's when they were trying to make women think that
    bottles were better. But I don't ever remember her doing it anywhere
    but the bedroom. liesl

    re .31
    
    I don't understand your question. If it is - why I think women should
    cover their breasts while breastfeeding. I don't think so. I was just
    stating my reaction. If the question is why I reacted that way, the
    answer is upbringing, different culture, etc.

    
    
    I think covering the child and some of the exposed area is a great
    idea. And my idea of whats ok and my sons idea of ok are two different
    things. He would not tolerate having anything preventing him from
    seeing what was going on around him and often thought the nipple was
    a separate entity from me. He would try to get down and take the 
    nipple with. Baring that he would unlatch and laugh and giggle and 
    coo and then latch on again. Babies do not know how to be discrete. 
    Much less why they should. They have no idea what others might think.
    I was brought up to feel embarassed about nudity and I hope that I do 
    not pass on that trait. 
    
    Earlier when he was just a wee one(before 4 months) I was often worried 
    of smothering him because the breast can easily cover a newborns nose
    and cause him to unlatch to catch his breath and he has no idea how to 
    latch on again he just knows that he opens his mouth and the nipple 
    is placed in his mouth. Both mom and baby have to learn the finer
    details and it can make for some dificult manuvers trying to keep the 
    blanket on the shoulder and see if the nipple is going into his mouth
    and his nose is not covered ect. and you have one hand to do this with.
    
    I started the baby first then I would either put the blanket on or ask
    someone to put it on my shoulder for me.
    Not one of the more discrete ways of doing it but with the third child
    I just got so tired of the juggling routine.
    
    janet
     

    re .34
    
    I don't understand your question. If it is - why I think women should
    cover their breasts while breastfeeding. I don't think so. I was just
    stating my reaction. If the question is why I reacted that way, the
    answer is upbringing, different culture, etc.
    
    	
    Your original statment was "i wish she had covered...."
    
    That indicated to me that either the sight of a female breast bothered
    you, or the open nursing of an infant bothered you. I was wondering
    which (if either) it was.
    
    re .36
    
    I guess I asked because the original note was about top-free equality
    and I wondered what .30 thought about it and the relationship to
    breast-feeding in public. Just an informational inquiry.
    
    ed

Janice breastfeeds Kai in public regularly. I think the most radical example is
one time when she was coming to pick me up at the airport. Kai was very hungry
and she was late, she breastfed Kai as she was going through airport security
and walking through the airport. The funniest part of this was when Kai came
unlatched as she was going through the metal detector. He was under her shirt
and started making little "rooting" noises startling the hell out of the
security people. One of them looked over and realized what was going on and
said "Don't smother him!"

I'm not exactly sure how this is germane to the original basenote. Most of the
nursing mothers I know DO NOT view their breasts as "sexual objects" while they
are nursing. Many of them, Janice included, are mostly annoyed by people who
can't seem to make a distinction. The tie-ins that I do see are that if
going top-free in public were accepted then breastfeeding in public would almost
certainly be better accepted as well. The second tie-in is that breastfeeding is
one place where women can, sometimes, somplaces, bare their breasts in public
with relatively less censure and without it being for sexual amusement.

I agree that if women were allowed to run around naked that would gradually
de-eroticize breasts. Similar things have been happening with women's legs - at
one time bare ankles were taboo. I've spent a certain amount of time on European
beaches (in Italy and France), on nude beaches in the U.S., and "social"
hot-tubbing here in California. In each case while bare breasts were erotic at
first you gradually got used to it until they were no more (or less) erotic than
any other attractive physical attribute.

	-- Charles

    Charles,
    
    if breasts become unerotic in the beach or hot tub situation, I'd
    still assume that they'd retain that feature in intimate encounters?
    
    BJ

I didn't say they became exactly *unerotic*, just no more or less erotic than
any other purely physical thing - which can be pretty erotic! And yes, in an
"intimate" or other sexual situation breasts were still erotic, but then so
were ankles, so...

I DO think the eroticization (is that a word?) of breasts is cultural and
conditioned, and we don't have to have it if we don't want to.

	-- Charles

    	My son and I nursed in public for the first year that he breastfed,
    	and I don't ever recall being embarrassed about it.  I never tried
    	to cover him - I liked watching his face while he nursed.  Unless he
    	was playing with the buttons on my shirt, he would peer up at me with
    	the corner of his mouth turned up in a little smile.

    	We spent 3 and a half months in Europe, and we nursed in public all
    	over Europe (in every situation where he got hungry.)  We were there
    	while he was 6 1/2 to 10 months old.  This was in 1971 (Ryan was
    	born in December of 1970.)

    	Everyone seems to assume that Americans are more uptight about this
    	than Europeans, but when I was there, most women were bottle-feeding
    	(while the U.S. was enjoying a renewed interest in nursing.)

    	In a town in Oxfordshire, England, I was nursing Ryan in a Laundromat
    	when a much older lady (60s or 70s) came up to me and said, "Now,
    	THAT'S the proper way to feed a baby!"  Another time, a man in a London
    	restaurant remarked to me that his wife had nursed all their children
    	and that he thought it was wonderful.  No one ever complained.

    	One other incident I recall was feeding Ryan in the park that's near
    	Buckingham Palace (can't recall the name of it at the moment,) and
    	two older American women walked by, with one saying to the other,
    	"Now, that's a sight you don't see very often."  They both smiled.

    	When Ryan was around a year old, he was old enough for me to be able
    	to ask him if he could please wait until we got home to nurse.  He
    	usually agreed.  I still nursed him in front of family and friends
    	at home, though.

    	When he was two and a half, we went to a LaLeche League meeting,
    	and Ryan had me sitting on the floor with him exploring a box of
    	interesting blocks and little toys while I talked with the other
    	Moms.  When he asked to nurse, I figured this was a good place
    	for it, so they got to see that he'd reached the "self-serve"
    	stage - he could move my shirt up and pretty much get it going
    	by himself by that time.  A few of the women were a bit surprised
    	to see a talking toddler still nursing, but others realized it was
    	still natural for him.

    	We stopped nursing (at his decision) six weeks before his 4th
    	birthday.  He simply told me one day (while we were starting to
    	nurse at nap time) that he was getting too old for it.  So we
    	discussed stopping nursing, and he decided it was time.

    	A few days later, he said he'd changed his mind about it, but I
    	encouraged him to stick to his decision.  He brought it up a few
    	more times in the next couple of months, but I explained that the
    	milk doesn't stay around after a child stops nursing.  He was so
    	cute, though - he tried to approach the situation logically -
    	"Well, Mommy, we could try to nurse, and if the milk isn't there
    	anymore, then that's ok.  But if there's milk there, then we can
    	go ahead and nurse."  :)  I encouraged him each time to stick to
    	his decision, and he was content about it.

    	The one thing that surprises me is that he has no memory whatsoever
    	of nursing, even though he nursed until he was almost 4 years old.
    	He supposes that it was just too natural and commonplace in his
    	life to hold special memories about it.

    	Still, I'm glad we kept it going until he decided to stop himself.
    	I was working two half-time jobs and going to college, so I figured
    	he needed to keep the tie with me a bit longer.  We ended up quitting
    	in the middle of my Junior Year.

    	It was a great experience, and I've never regretted being so open
    	about it in public.

    	Someone mentioned that her baby seemed to think that the nipple
    	was separate from her (and would try to take it along when getting
    	up from nursing...)  ;^)

    	My son had one habit that used to really smart sometimes.  If he
    	was nursing intensely and something caught his attention, he'd
    	whip his head around without letting go of the nipple.  If the
    	suction broke, it would slip out of his mouth (which would be ok,
    	even if a tiny bit painful.)

    	Sometimes, the suction would hold and he'd pull on the breast very
    	hard.  You never want to yell "OUCH!!!" at your baby when nursing,
    	so I would suffer quietly.

    	Luckily, he got over this practice by 18 months old or so.

    	As for biting, he didn't have teeth until he was almost 8 months
    	old, but even then, he only bit me twice.  He bit me once to see
    	what would happen, and the feeding ended instantly (with me yelling
    	"OUCH!!!!" quietly into my own head.)  The second time, I was going
    	out and tried to feed him before he was hungry.  He was 8 months 
    	old or so.  He looked me straight in the eye and deliberately bit
    	down (as if to say, "This means the feeding is over like last time,
    	right??")  I put him down and got a bottle ready for the sitter. :)

    	Sometimes, he would fall asleep nursing, and his mouth would start
    	to slowly close down.  I'd have to gently unlatch him in his sleep
    	(and even though it didn't hurt, I'd find teeth marks where his
    	mouth had started to bite down a bit.)

    	The most fun part, though, was his face when he nursed.  He would
    	play with my buttons or my fingers, and always gave me the sweetest
    	little smile.  It was a way of saying he loved me.

    in re .40
    
    yeah, but Charles
    
    I don't get 'turned on' when my ankles are kissed :-)
    
    Bonnie

    in re Suzanne what lovely stories..
    
    BJ

	re: ankles et al:

	Concentration on breasts can cause the overlooking of other
	interesting ideas.  

	_peggy

My wife breast fed all three of our children.  However, very few people
even knew because she put the baby under her blouse.  I have always felt
that since it was so easy to be discrete women who displayed there 
breasts (in defiance of other people's feelings) were making a statement
as much as feeding their children. The statement isn't necessary breast 
feeding is fine and natural.

    Definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary.  Examples from me.
    
    discrete adj. 1. Individually distinct; separate.  2. Consisting of
    unconnected distinct parts.
    
    	'A mother has 2 discrete breasts with which to nurse a baby, in
    public or private.'
    
    discreet adj. Having or showing good judgement and self-restraint
    inspeech or behavior; prudent.
    
    	'A mother may choose to be discreet when she nurses a baby
    by keeping the baby under her blouse.'

    re .46, It doesn't seem to me that it would be easy to be discreet.
     It seems to me that it would be an awful nuisance.  Too much of
    a nuisance to bother with.  It also seems to me that women shouldn't
    have to be discreet, as though they were doing something to be ashamed
    of, or something that was so filthy and dirty that no one else should
    see.  It should just be an okay, acceptable thing to do in public.
    
    Lorna
    

    My ex-wife's aunt-in-law breast fed her son in our presence. She always
    seemed very selfconcious about it. I always looked her in the eye while
    she was doing this and I was addressing her in conversation. I didn't
    see anything wrong and wondered why she was selfconcious. We never
    commented on it and just chose to ignore it and go on with what we were
    doing.
    
    After I left college, I took a job pumping gas. Hey $180.00/wk clear at
    1971 dollars was pretty good money. Anyway, we saw some strange sights
    at the pumps. One woman came in with her husband and while he was in
    the garage arrainging to have his car worked on, I was servicing the
    car. While I was washing the windows, yes we did that in those days,
    the woman decided to breast feed her child. Before she started, she
    wrapped on the window and deliberately called my attention by smiling
    and slowly unbuttoning her blouse. She then released both breasts and
    started the kid on one and actually shook the other one at me, laughing
    all the time. The husband came out and I hurriedly finished up the
    fillup, collected the money, and quickly went back in the station.
    
    In those days, that excited me, but thinking back on it now, I find her
    behaviour a bit excessive. She may have told her husband and they got
    their kicks doing that stuff. I don't know. Today I would be highly
    embarassed by that behaviour. Just plain breastfeeding a child in
    public, whether the woman was covered or not wouldn't bother me
    anymore.
    
    Phil

    There are two instances of descriptions of breastfeeding I find
    disturbing in this string:
    
    1) Finding someone breastfeeding in a bathroom
    
    2) The overt display in the car
    
    I feel that if someone finds "natural" brestfeeding in public
    it is their problem, and not the problem of the mother.
    
    Kids gotta eat too.
    
    I find uncovered (or scantily covered) breasts sexually interesting,
    but not as part of breastfeeding.  My wife, one of my sister-in-laws,
    and some of my friends breastfed in "public" and I found it perfectly
    natural and the proper thing to do.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    	If a woman wants to hide a baby in her blouse while nursing,
    	that's certainly a valid choice.  But if she chooses to keep
    	the baby's head out in the open for nursing, it isn't a sign
    	of anything other than this woman exercising another valid
    	choice.

    	Personally, I could never have buried Ryan's head inside my
    	clothes.  It just wouldn't have seemed comfortable to me
    	- and I'm quite sure Ryan would have protested about it.

    	Ryan expected to be able to look at my face when he nursed
    	(and I spent most of the time looking at his face in return.)
    	It was something we were doing *together*, after all.  We got
    	used to sharing the experience openly.

    	It makes no sense to assume that a woman (who is doing nothing
    	but nurse her child) has any motive other than to engage in a
    	perfectly natural act in an open way.  There's nothing at all
    	to be ashamed of about this.

    
    	So is baring a breast in public for other than breast-feeding just
    as natural?
    
    

    I'l bite.
    Yes if a woman wishes to bare her breasts in public I feel she should
    be able to do so. If it offends me I will look the other way.
    I think that the no shirt, no shoes, no service policy can still apply
    and that there is time and place for both men and women when they could 
    chose to do this and when it should not be a choise for either.
    I do believe that just because someone else wants to do it doesn't mean
    we ALL have to.
    janet
    

    re .52, I think that the same rules regarding going topless in public
    should apply to both men and women.  I think it's an outrage that
    they don't now.  Not because I have a great urge to run around in
    public with no shirt on, but because if I wanted to I should have
    just as much right to as a man.
    
    Lorna
    

    erotic is thier problem not mine.
    Women should be able to chose to go bare breasted when men have the
    option. Other wise don't allow men to go bare breasted. 
    Men's bare chest's are more along my line of erotica anyway. So
    why would I care if a woman was bare chested?
    janet
    
    

    re .55, and .56, that's right.  I've seen some very attractive young
    guys without shirts on, in public, whom I thought were quite erotic
    looking.  I've also seen some guys without shirts on in public who
    looked so horrible I had to turn my eyes away to keep from getting
    sick!  :-)   If I can deal with my various feelings, from being
    turned on to being repulsed, so can men.
    
    Lorna
    

I don't mind if the women around me want to go out 'topless'; unfortunately,
its for all the wrong reasons!  (-: �.

But I can see that we'd need a major change in the rape laws/defences. Since 
a woman in a short skirt could be construed as "asking for it" (well-
known rape defence in modern society), can you imagine what an invitation 
being bare-breasted would be???????

			Nigel

>    "Give me the name of your house of worship, I will go there Sunday (or
>    Saturday), and when I fart I will think of your bare breasts."
 
Herb, this is ridiculous.  What has farting to do with bare breasts?
Nothing.

Besides, while deliberately farting is rude, since it is unpleasant to
just about everyone, farting is a natural thing, and it is *not* *illegal*!!!
And if anyone suggested it should be, they'd get laughed out of town.

Thirdly, why the comment about "place of worship"?  For some reason you
are getting nasty about things.  I don't want to take my top of in any
church or private function, and I don't think I should be allowed to
by law.  I should be allowed to take my top of in *public*.  You are
allowed to fart in public, Herb.  Brining "worship" into it is just
adding an irrelevent subject to inflame.

And as to the fact that the difference between men and women going
shirtless is that women's chests are seen as erotic in this society -
they are seen as erotic *because* they are kept hidden.  If suddenly
all women in society started going topless, it would take about
2 months for breasts to become thoroughly as de-eroticized as everything
else on the human body.  Trust me on this, I have spent enough time at
nude beaches to know.  So that argument is meaningless, too.

Women's legs are erotic to many men - but we don't force women to cover
them?  Why should something's eroticness mean it should be covered
anyway???

D!

    
    re. 61 
    
    But people find all manner of things "offensive/embarrassing/awkward"
    and that doesn't mean they can't do it. And I don't think that any
    woman would be doing  it to "fly in the face of your values".
    
    Besides, it's discriminitory on the basis of sex.
    
    
    
    

    Then I wonder how toplessness would effect our collective nuerosis
    about the way our bodies look...
    
    Would people stop being so uptight and get used to the idea htat
    how they look is how they look and nobody should tell them their
    body is any worse than another's?
    
    Or would we hit some gawd-awful stage of "toning" and "conditioning"
    so people wouldn't feel "inadequate" compared to the women and men
    who have what society calls "great chests"?
    
    Can't decide which is more likely, although you can guess which
    one I find the better alternative!
    
    Daniel

    
    >I am willing to concede that bare breasted women is one of them. The
    >point is that many people -of both sexes- find it
    >offensive/embarrassing/awkward. I simply do not understand why one
    >would insist on doing this inspite of this reality.
    
    Herb,  I don't believe the issue is that any woman is insisting on
    being barebreasted.  I think the issue is one of equality.  Let's
    say that you and I are walking on, say, the Boston Common on a sunny
    afternoon.  You take your shirt off.  What happens?  Nothing.  I take
    my shirt off, what happens?  I get arrested.  Is that fair?  I
    understand that you (and many other men) find the sight of female
    breasts erotic, but at least one other womannoter has stated that she
    finds uncovered male breasts erotic, and frankly so do I.  What's the
    difference?  I know, I know, its a cultural hang-up.  Well, since you
    don't want to see naked female breasts in public, would you be willing
    to see laws passed that dictate that *you* (and any other male) are
    barred from baring your breasts in public?  That would satisfy me just
    fine - I'll keep my shirt on, you do the same, ok?
    
    FWIW, my SO and several other male friends of mine have recognized
    this inequality, and refuse to take their shirts off in public (and
    discourage other men from removing theirs) to show solidarity.  I say,
    good for them!
    
    And on a tangent...
    
    Female breasts serve two functions - they feed the human young, and
    they provide sexual stimulation.  Male breasts function *only* for
    sexual stimulation (at least I don't *think* men are capable of nursing
    their young.)  So why is it that in this culture it is only the female
    breast that is eroticized??  One might think it would be the other way
    'round.
    
    					/Rita
    

    re: .61  herb
    
    I don't think the point of this is to change people's minds about how
    erotic breasts are.  The point is to allow women the same legal freedom
    as men have.
    
    o  It is LEGAL for a man to take his shirt off, no matter what he looks
       like.
    o  It is ILLEGAL for a woman to take her shirt off, no matter what she
       looks like.
    
    This is unfair.  We have been *trained* to be uncomfortable with
    topless women in public.  We can be *untrained*.  The tip of a woman's
    shoulder used to be highly erotic -- society changed.  Women's dresses
    used to expose the breasts fully -- society changed.  Ankles used to be
    highly erotic -- society changed.  
    
    Change about what is embarrassing or private is one of the constants in
    our society.  Many things are "offensive/embarrassing/awkward".  But
    they don't have to be illegal things.
    
    Pam

    
    I'd agree with the last few.
    If the laws did change allowing women the same top-free freedom
    I'd expect that after a while society would indeed adjust.
    I just wonder if it wouldn't take a generations worth of time
    to do so.
    
    								Hank

    When my father was a young man it was indeed illegal for men to
    have bare chests in public in some places at least. I know that
    men's  bathing suits at the time had to have a top on them.
    
    Bonnie

    We could also ban tank tops and halter tops and muscle shirts. To
    different people these are "erotic", "offencive" ect.
    
    If women must not "bare" chests then men should be restricted also.
    I'm trying to say I believe it is sexist and should be allowed
    for both or not allowed for both using "eritoc" or "offencive"
    as a reason goes both ways.
    
    Now I will state that I can't believe that I would ever feel
    comfortable taking off my "top" for an extended amount of time 
    for something like "getting a tan". In a clothes optional
    situation I preferr clothes. I do not believe that I have
    the right to restrict anyone from wearing what they want to 
    at any given time and if it is a law it should be equal for
    both sexes. Either both can or both can not.
    
    I need to remind myself that I can chose what I want to think
    about people. When I force others to comply with my wishes or 
    desires I have gone beyond me and now someone other than me 
    is affected Here is where I do believe that we need to eventually
    make a change in the law. Clothes neither invite or decine invitations
    people do. No matter what a person wears I feel they have a right to
    wear whatever it is unmolested by the society around them. I also
    will exersise my right to comment about the fashion trends and support 
    those I like by purchacing approprate styles. I will not ever 
    believe that I can mandate someones personal tastes and comfort
    and if I do not like a style I will not buy it nor will I 
    pretend I like it. I am not like everyone else so I will
    not chose for everyone else. I will chose for me and I will
    allow others the freedom to chose for themselves.
    
    janet

Is it illegal to go topless in your own backyard? Or front yard? Does it vary
by state? I was just wondering if top-free equality in public would influence
that. I'd like to feel comfortable tanning with even less clothing, but I doubt
I would until it was legal in public (given the abutters, and closeness
thereof).

	Mez

    The point is that many people -of both sexes- find it not at all
    offensive/embarrassing/awkward to see people without a shirt on.  I
    simply do not understand why one would insist on making only women wear
    a shirt inspite of this reality.
    
    I get peeved at the fact that I have to drive for hours to get to a
    nude beach where I can feel the sun and wind on my skin on a hot day. 
    Guys can step outside and toss their shirt off just about anywhere. 
    I'm not so lucky.  I'd probably get arrested if I mowed the lawn
    without the "benefit" of some uncomfortable cover up.  
    
    After years of having to fiddle with bra straps and adjusting scanty
    tops so "nothing showed", it is an incredible sense of freedom to be
    able to go bare chested like a normal person.  It is a _lot_ more
    comfortable.  It's pretty common for guys to play shirts vs. skins, but
    they get all embarrassed and have to change things around if a female
    wants to play.  I've been jealous of this since my Mom made me start
    covering up when I was six, but it was OK for my brothers to go around
    playing Indians without their shirts.
    
    I surely wouldn't want to go top free everywhere, but there are times
    when it would be damn nice not to have to worry about people who think
    my chest is a dirty, obscene thing.  Luckily, I've found such places,
    but they are a long way from my backyard.
    
    			Bb

    
    re .70
    
    I don't think it is actually illegal for a woman to go topless
    anywhere. I think the law against nudity is more a law against
    'createing a disturbance'. I think the system uses the vagueness of the
    laws in this area to their 'moral' advantage. Anyone know of a specific
    reference to bare female breasts in any laws?
    
    ed

    
    re .70
    
    In Denver I have friends who have a Hot tub in thier back yard.
    They often chose not to wear cloths. In thier back yard. The
    neighbors who are bothered by it compesated by putting in a 
    very tall thick hedge and in the window that looks out into
    my friends backyard they have a beutiful stained glass picture 
    almost as big as the window. The garage  and a strategically 
    placed tree block the other neighbors (the tree is only useful)
    in the summer).
    
    And the beliefs of these people is that Its my backyard I can do as
    I want. If it bothers you... dont look. I usually dont(look that is).
    They want me to be comfortable and have changed some of habits
    out of respect for me(I didn't ask they just wore swimsuits or robes
    when I was around). In hindsight I think it was very nice of them
    to anticipate my comfort while we were visiting. I had been prepared
    so I knew what to expect and I look forward to visiting them again
    hopefully we will see her at the REN fest next week Larksburg(sp?)
    
    janet
    

	In the spirit of support, I hearby declare my house and grounds
"tops optional".  Indeed, if anyone would like to come sunbathe on my
deck, or in my yard, let me know.  For those of you who don't want to make 
a completely "public" statement, the deck is reasonably private, and if I 
ever get the $$$ to replace the chain link, the yard will be as well.

	My house is not particularly private, on the street side, 
yet I almost never bother to close the blinds. (I was quite amused to find 
most of the blinds closed after the =wn= party - including the bathroom which
backs up on the woods and can't be seen from anywhere!)

	I've actually had occaision to see a couple of =wn= noters sans 
clothing, and after the initial adjustment, had no problem at all.


							--D

    
>    I don't think it is actually illegal for a woman to go topless
>    anywhere. I think the law against nudity is more a law against
>    'createing a disturbance'.

    In which case, it's an awfully funny interpretation of the law.
    Why don't we just arrest random famous people then, say, Gorbachev,
    Christie Brinkley, and Tom Hanks, all for "creating a disturbance"
    when they go somewhere?  Let's face it, if I were in a crowd of
    people surrounding Elizabeth Taylor and trampling each other for
    autographs, and I took off my shirt, who if anyone do you think
    would get arrested, me or Liz?

	Sharon

    Laws against nudity are distinct and separate from laws against
    "creating a disturbance". They are usually referred to as "indecent
    exposure".
    
    --- jerry

    
    I believe my Town has a very old ordinance that states that men
    must always wear a shirt when working around the yard or they can
    be subject to arrest.
    
    I read it a year or so ago when the local yocal paper had a short
    article on some of the obscure old laws still on the books.
    
    								Hank

    I know it's late in the game to reply to this note, but I do have
    a few thoughts on the matter...
    
    1. Why should women's behaviour be constrained, when it's men who 
    apparently can't deal with the subject?
    
    2. Nudists live with each other in The Altogether all the time. They
    don't spend every waking moment jumping each other's bones. It's all
    conditioning. You can control yourself if you choose. 
    
    3. And you can differentiate between your reaction to breasts in 
    erotic situations and in non-erotic situations. Nurses, doctors, and
    massage therapists do it all the time.
    
    4. *BREASTS!!!!!* to the American male are merely breasts to men in
    many other cultures. Are they erogenous zones in other cultures? Yep.
    Do men in other cultures tell tomes of jokes, and seem unable to
    do anything but stare in the presence of bare-breasted women? Nope.
    
    --DE
     
    
    

    Re: .54 and .60.

    Exactly what I was trying to say in my replies .9 and .15. I suppose I
    was a little uneasy about saying what I probably should. 


    Yes, Pat (wife) and I go to and enjoy nude beaches/resorts. When we
    lived in NE we were at Cedar Waters in NH often. We both agreed that
    there is nothing as free and pleasant as the wind and sun over your
    whole body. While in Jamaica on our Honeymoon we had the opportunity to
    take part in a CO cruise on a Catamaran. The feeling of being at ease,
    free to the elements of nature and at one with each other and the
    surroundings were indescribable. Perhaps the best and fondest memories
    were of setting together on the Clothing Optional beach holding hands, 
    watching the sun set on the horizon, while the breeze blew over us. 
    The feeling of oneness and togetherness was tremendous. And yet GASP!!! 
    Pat didn't have a top on, SO WHAT neither did I nor anybody else on 
    the beach.

    On the first visits to any such Clothing Optional (CO) environment it
    can be, well, stimulating. You get used to it. And no you DO NOT become
    desenitized to the erotic potential of your mate just because they are
    able to be around in the all together. Indeed it has the opposite
    effect on us. Like any thing in adult life you control how and where
    you react to certain things. The response to one's mate should be based
    on love, caring, attraction to the person within, not just if they are
    clothed or not.

    Can the breasts be an erotic area, h*ll yes, for BOTH sexes. Does that
    make it right that men can uncover and women cannot? H*ll NO!!!!

    There should not be any discrimination against one sex about the
    ability to dress or undress a specific area if the other sex has no
    such prohibitions. If men can't handle it that's THEIR problem not the
    woman's. 

    As has been stated, not all women would necessarily want to uncover 
    their chest, (nor do all men), but it SHOULD BE THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO 
    if men can.


    		Dave L...

    >1. Why should women's behaviour be constrained, when it's men who 
    >apparently can't deal with the subject?
    
    Excellent question and I think it gets to the crux of the matter.
    Men make the decisions.  And given a choice between "de-eroticizing" 
    breasts, (there go 99% of the porn mags!), and constraining women, 
    which do YOU think they'd do?  They'd do just as they have done.  
    Constrain real women and celebrate the breast only as a sexual goody 
    for males.  The blatant hypocrisy of "strippers, actresses and center-
    folds excluded" betrays their agenda.  They want to see them only when
    THEY want to see them and only for their OWN reasons.  And I don't
    think many of them particularly want to get desensitized - which is why
    we still have laws and social custom working to keep the average
    woman's breast, (and its function), under wraps.  As in most everything
    else, woman's reality takes a back seat to man's fantasy and that women 
    are hampered or constrained by it simply hasn't been considered im-
    portant.  Or at least not as important as insuring that strippers,
    actresses and centerfolds stay around for awhile and not become
    obsolete.
    
    The reason the eroticism of men's chests to women is also "not
    important" is because women aren't supposed to be hunting in the sexual
    sense anyway, (they should be at home), and men aren't supposed to be 
    providing a sexual component to the general landscape for women.  Our
    world is supposed to be as devoid of 'general sexuality' as men's world
    is supposed to be rich with it.  When these primitive sexist ideas
    finally die, we'll have the equality we seek.  Until then, women's role
    is to be only the providers of sexual pleasure and men's is to be only 
    the consumers of it.

>    Men make the decisions.  And given a choice between "de-eroticizing" 
>    breasts, (there go 99% of the porn mags!), and constraining women, 
>    which do YOU think they'd do?  

*sigh*

Everything you say is true, except that the de-erotizisation of certain
eroticized parts of the body can be negative for both men *and* women.

I have long supported not just "top-free" but "clothes-free" in general.
I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to not wear any clothes.

At the same time, I would feel some sense of *personal* disappointment
if people actually did start going without clothes.  Because I know from
experience that after seeing enough nude bodies in nonerotic circumstances,
it just looses it's *wow*.  And I *like* that "wow".  I *enjoy* viewing
those things that the usual hiding of makes erotic.  I, personally, would
get less erotic pleasure viewing nude bodies if nudity became common.

Yet I don't let that stop me from supporting nudists, because I think
their right to choose what they wear supercedes my right (or, rather,
preference) to experience erotic pleasure at nudity.

That is how it works with rights - sometimes giving people their rights
causes life to be less {convenient|pleasureable|whatever} for other people,
and yet you have to do it anyway.  Because it's the Right Thing to do.
So whether it is letting groups that I disagree with still have freedom
of speech, or letting people raise their children in ways I consider
ultimately harmful (not including child abuse, of course), or letting people
go naked even when I would prefer they didn't - one must still protect
the rights of others.

Point that out to the next man who says that women should be required to
wear tops so that sex doesn't get boring.  ;-)

D!